Update on Market Place works (From Salisbury Journal)

Sustainer says...
3:34pm Wed 6 Mar 13

Surely all the consultation and discussions have given us, the public, a say in how the money is spent. I think it true that we would welcome the buy British aspiration but we also expect our representatives to provide value for money. If, as it has on this occasion, buying British flies in the face of value for money then value for money takes a higher priority.
I applaud Mr Rogers for doing
"my utmost to buy British products" but that phrase also suggests that there are times when he doesn't. I guess those times are value for money driven.

Report this post »

Richard Clewer says...
4:56pm Wed 6 Mar 13

We are using granite for the surface of the Market Place because, on advice from experts, it is the best surface to match the durabiltiy to deal with the weight of the Market and Charter Fair, retains good grip in wet weather and to give a nice, quality surface.

Having been advised to use granite the Area Board agreed that as a surface last August. Requests were made for samples to be made available to make sure the surface was smooth enough for wheelchairs yet retained enough grip for pedestrians. This was done earlier this year and after Councillors approval was obtained, the order was placed.

Granite is now produced primarily in China with some production in Portugal. There was UK production in Scotland but those quarries appear to have been mostly mothballed over the last few decades. Based on that, officers made a choice to get the best value for money, a phrase that combines both quality, durability and cost.

I must admit I am confused as to what point Ricky is trying to make. There was huge consultation over the Market Square including over the surface. We are now at a point where we can either carry out improvements to the Market Place which give us more disabled parking, a disabled toilet, a more accesible City Centre and a Market Place which we can use to host events and bring more people to the City. Or we can decide not to go ahead. Delay now would have been the same as cancellation. Elected Councillors for the City made a public choice to improve the Market Place. This is supported by the City Council and business organisations in the City. It was also supported by the public at the Area Board meeting.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Clewer.

Report this post »

karlmarx says...
3:27am Thu 7 Mar 13

This farce reminds me of a scene from the movie 'Falling Down' starring Michael Douglas as Bill Foster, a disgruntled recently made redundant defence industry employee...

Bill Foster: What are you doing to the street?
Construction Worker: We're fixing it! What the hell does it look like?
Bill Foster: Two days ago it was fine. You're telling me the street fell apart in two days?
Construction Worker: (sarcastically) Well I guess so.
Bill Foster: Pardon me, but that's bulls**t. You see, I don't think anything's wrong with the street. I think you're just trying to justify your inflated budgets! I know that if you don't spend the projected amount this year, you don't get the same amount next year! Now I want you to admit that THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THE STREET!
Construction Worker: **** you, pal.
Bill Foster: You're not gonna hold us hostage here with all your yellow lights and big trucks.
Construction Worker: (notices the gun on Foster's belt) Look, I'm just here to stop people from falling in, that's all.
Bill Foster: I want to hear it from you. Come on, what's wrong with the street?
Construction Worker: I really don't know, I think it might be a sewer job.
Bill foster: You're lying. What's wrong with the street?
Construction Worker: Nothing.
Bill Foster: I KNEW it.

(Expletives modified)

Report this post »

Richard Clewer says...
8:38am Thu 7 Mar 13

Now you have completely lost me. There is no farce going on here. There are major changes comming to Salisbury with the Maltings development. These will have an impact on parking and we need to collectively come up with a solution about how much parking we need in the city and where.

The works to the Market Place and New Canal, along with the Maltings, also open up an opportunity to look at city centre traffic flow. You can currently drive through the city centre, something which I don't think makes sense when we have a ring road.

The future of retail areas is going to require changes. They have got to become places where people come for leisure, culture and retail. Salisbury is extremely well placed for this with the Cathedral and old City Centre but to bring people in we need to make it a less polluted and less congested space.

I have asked the Vision to look at this in the round as it is made up of people from different groups who can give an independent view of the requirements of the City Centre.

What we need is for everyone to get involved with ideas and views so we can come up with solutions that have been properly analysed and thought through. To snipe from the sidelines behind anonymity really does not help.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Clewer

Report this post »

Helen Farmer says...
9:24am Thu 7 Mar 13

"I must admit I am confused as to what point Ricky is trying to make", Just as you were 'confused' over the regulations for disabled parking provision. Cllr Roger's point is clear, the sample was not made available for public viewing, and importing Granite from China is not appropriate.

"There was huge consultation over the Market Square" Which resulted in the MAJORITY voting to keep disabled parking IN the square, and less than one third wanting it removed, (and yes, we know 61% wanted the area pedestrianised, but the two were not mutually exclusive).

"including over the surface". Which the original 'test patch' of the proposed cobbles showed to be unfit for purpose. Cllr Clewer, you stated publicly in August 2012 that there would be another 'test patch' of 'flatter setts' to ensure that they were suitable - THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED.

"We are now at a point where we can either carry out improvements to the Market Place which give us more disabled parking" NO, they won't. 6 road side spaces (to be shared with Market Traders on Market Days), is fewer than the 8 permanent off street spaces which have been provided in the Guildhall Square for the last 20 years, so there will be fewer Blue Badge spaces on any kind in and around the Market. The proposed 13 off road spaces, (in New Canal, where there WERE 4) have now been reduced to 10. We had (until works began) 8 off street spaces in the Guildhall Square plus 4 in New Canal = 12. Ten is less than twelve. However you look at it, the Market Area will have fewer safe, off road disabled spaces than before.

"a disabled toilet" hurrah, at last! Of course there WAS an accessible toilet behind the Guildhall for years, until the Vision removed it, as part of it's first project, the £1.2 million refurb of the Guildhall, which resulted in NO improvement to the access lift for disabled people, and neglected to include the roof.

"a more accesible City Centre" MORE accessible? For whom? with no parking, and a cobbled surface - not for disabled or elderly people that's for sure.

"and a Market Place which we can use to host events" As Salisbury have done, very sucessfully, twice a week, for the last few hundred years. Of course, now that disabled parking has been removed from the Guildhall Square, the buses bringing people in from the villages have been moved from New Canal, the entire area is to be covered in three inch granite setts, and the layout of the Market changed around, whether this will continue is debatable.

"and bring more people to the City" Of course, people will flock to Salisbury when there is no parking, the twice weekly market has been decimated and many more business have gone bust.

"Or we can decide not to go ahead" - Really? That gets my vote, but we were told a year and a half ago, that there was already a contract with the developers, and that just like Bourne Hill, we couldn't pull out.

Cllr Clewer- you can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

"I must admit I am confused as to what point Ricky is trying to make", Just as you were 'confused' over the regulations for disabled parking provision. Cllr Roger's point is clear, the sample was not made available for public viewing, and importing Granite from China is not appropriate. "There was huge consultation over the Market Square" Which resulted in the MAJORITY voting to keep disabled parking IN the square, and less than one third wanting it removed, (and yes, we know 61% wanted the area pedestrianised, but the two were not mutually exclusive). "including over the surface". Which the original 'test patch' of the proposed cobbles showed to be unfit for purpose. Cllr Clewer, you stated publicly in August 2012 that there would be another 'test patch' of 'flatter setts' to ensure that they were suitable - THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED. "We are now at a point where we can either carry out improvements to the Market Place which give us more disabled parking" NO, they won't. 6 road side spaces (to be shared with Market Traders on Market Days), is fewer than the 8 permanent off street spaces which have been provided in the Guildhall Square for the last 20 years, so there will be fewer Blue Badge spaces on any kind in and around the Market. The proposed 13 off road spaces, (in New Canal, where there WERE 4) have now been reduced to 10. We had (until works began) 8 off street spaces in the Guildhall Square plus 4 in New Canal = 12. Ten is less than twelve. However you look at it, the Market Area will have fewer safe, off road disabled spaces than before. "a disabled toilet" hurrah, at last! Of course there WAS an accessible toilet behind the Guildhall for years, until the Vision removed it, as part of it's first project, the £1.2 million refurb of the Guildhall, which resulted in NO improvement to the access lift for disabled people, and neglected to include the roof. "a more accesible City Centre" MORE accessible? For whom? with no parking, and a cobbled surface - not for disabled or elderly people that's for sure. "and a Market Place which we can use to host events" As Salisbury have done, very sucessfully, twice a week, for the last few hundred years. Of course, now that disabled parking has been removed from the Guildhall Square, the buses bringing people in from the villages have been moved from New Canal, the entire area is to be covered in three inch granite setts, and the layout of the Market changed around, whether this will continue is debatable. "and bring more people to the City" Of course, people will flock to Salisbury when there is no parking, the twice weekly market has been decimated and many more business have gone bust. "Or we can decide not to go ahead" - Really? That gets my vote, but we were told a year and a half ago, that there was already a contract with the developers, and that just like Bourne Hill, we couldn't pull out. Cllr Clewer- you can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Helen Farmer

Report this post »

Helen Farmer says...
9:58am Thu 7 Mar 13

"The works to the Market Place and New Canal, along with the Maltings, also open up an opportunity to look at city centre traffic flow"
Such as excluding the 'Country Buses' which have been dropping off, picking up and waiting for passengers in New Canal for at least the last 60 years, disrupting the community minibuses which bring elderly and disabled people into the city for the market, and removing all CITY CENTRE coach and motorcycle parking.

"You can currently drive through the city centre, something which I don't think makes sense when we have a ring road."
People use the ring road to go AROUND the City, they drive INTO the City to access shops and services, are you really suggesting removing all vehicles from the city centre? Two years ago, i'd have assumed you meant EXCEPT for Disabled peoples access - now I know better.

"The future of retail areas is going to require changes. They have got to become places where people come for leisure, culture and retail", This is 2013, Mr Clewer, not 2003. Retail areas are no longer 'leisure areas'. Easy credit, a house price bubble and plentiful work have been replaced by a 'triple dip recesion": severe lack of affordable credit, mass unemployment (or rather, mass 'part time' employment), ever rising fuel bills and the realisation that ordinary working class and middle class people will 'never again have it so good'.

"Salisbury is extremely well placed for this with the Cathedral and old City Centre but to bring people in we need to make it a less polluted and less congested space" If you remove the parking for coaches, buses, motorcycles and tourists, fewer people will visit.

"What we need is for everyone to get involved with ideas and views so we can come up with solutions that have been properly analysed and thought through"
As I and other chronically sick and disabled people have done over the last few years, causing ourselves considerable pain, discomfort and stress in the process, only to be rewarded with broken promises, out right misrepresentation of the facts, and a complete disregard for the NEEDS of mobility impaired people, Government guidance, Wiltshire Council's own parking policy, and the LAW.

"The works to the Market Place and New Canal, along with the Maltings, also open up an opportunity to look at city centre traffic flow" Such as excluding the 'Country Buses' which have been dropping off, picking up and waiting for passengers in New Canal for at least the last 60 years, disrupting the community minibuses which bring elderly and disabled people into the city for the market, and removing all CITY CENTRE coach and motorcycle parking. "You can currently drive through the city centre, something which I don't think makes sense when we have a ring road." People use the ring road to go AROUND the City, they drive INTO the City to access shops and services, are you really suggesting removing all vehicles from the city centre? Two years ago, i'd have assumed you meant EXCEPT for Disabled peoples access - now I know better. "The future of retail areas is going to require changes. They have got to become places where people come for leisure, culture and retail", This is 2013, Mr Clewer, not 2003. Retail areas are no longer 'leisure areas'. Easy credit, a house price bubble and plentiful work have been replaced by a 'triple dip recesion": severe lack of affordable credit, mass unemployment (or rather, mass 'part time' employment), ever rising fuel bills and the realisation that ordinary working class and middle class people will 'never again have it so good'. "Salisbury is extremely well placed for this with the Cathedral and old City Centre but to bring people in we need to make it a less polluted and less congested space" If you remove the parking for coaches, buses, motorcycles and tourists, fewer people will visit. "What we need is for everyone to get involved with ideas and views so we can come up with solutions that have been properly analysed and thought through" As I and other chronically sick and disabled people have done over the last few years, causing ourselves considerable pain, discomfort and stress in the process, only to be rewarded with broken promises, out right misrepresentation of the facts, and a complete disregard for the NEEDS of mobility impaired people, Government guidance, Wiltshire Council's own parking policy, and the LAW. Helen Farmer

Report this post »

Richard Clewer says...
10:44am Thu 7 Mar 13

Dear Helen,

I think you need to check the detail of your comments before you make them.

The Vision had nothing to do with the Guildhall, that was the responsibility of the City Council.

We are not laying cobbles in the Market Place, we are laying smoothed blocks, something you are aware of already. To call them cobbles is just trying to stir trouble. They are not 3 inch sets, the blocks are 30cm by 20cm by 15cm deep (to make sure they don't break under the weight of the Market or Charter Fair).

There are currently 12 disabled parking spaces provided. At the end of this process there will be 22 spaces. They will be more evenly distributed around the centre of the city and bring more shops within the 50 meters (although that is changing to 80 I gather from the latest government reviews) of a disabled space.

I did not state there would be a public test of the surface. Councillors asked to view the final surface choice and they had the opportunity to do so.

If you really think the market will be destroyed by providing a better surface, with better power access I guess that is your point of view. Personally I think it will be greatly improved and should be able to thrive.

No Country Buses are being excluded, the drop off points are changing in some cases but those catering to the elderly in our surrounding villages will still have spaces in New Canal.

The works to the Guildhall and New Canal will make things better for disabled people and those with mobility issues with an increase in level surfaces, more parking and better access. I would add that other groups including Shop Mobility support the plans.
Bicycle parking will increase in the Market Place/New Canal. Motorbike parking is being moved to Brown Street Car Park.
I agree that we need much more debate on parking in relation to the Maltings and how much parking we want in the city centre. We also have to consider congestion and air quality in the City as well, something the Park and Ride sites can help with. That is a different issue to the Market Place.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Clewer

Dear Helen, I think you need to check the detail of your comments before you make them. The Vision had nothing to do with the Guildhall, that was the responsibility of the City Council. We are not laying cobbles in the Market Place, we are laying smoothed blocks, something you are aware of already. To call them cobbles is just trying to stir trouble. They are not 3 inch sets, the blocks are 30cm by 20cm by 15cm deep (to make sure they don't break under the weight of the Market or Charter Fair). There are currently 12 disabled parking spaces provided. At the end of this process there will be 22 spaces. They will be more evenly distributed around the centre of the city and bring more shops within the 50 meters (although that is changing to 80 I gather from the latest government reviews) of a disabled space. I did not state there would be a public test of the surface. Councillors asked to view the final surface choice and they had the opportunity to do so. If you really think the market will be destroyed by providing a better surface, with better power access I guess that is your point of view. Personally I think it will be greatly improved and should be able to thrive. No Country Buses are being excluded, the drop off points are changing in some cases but those catering to the elderly in our surrounding villages will still have spaces in New Canal. The works to the Guildhall and New Canal will make things better for disabled people and those with mobility issues with an increase in level surfaces, more parking and better access. I would add that other groups including Shop Mobility support the plans. Bicycle parking will increase in the Market Place/New Canal. Motorbike parking is being moved to Brown Street Car Park. I agree that we need much more debate on parking in relation to the Maltings and how much parking we want in the city centre. We also have to consider congestion and air quality in the City as well, something the Park and Ride sites can help with. That is a different issue to the Market Place. Yours sincerely, Richard Clewer Richard Clewer

Report this post »

gingin says...
12:09pm Thu 7 Mar 13

Personally I am looking forward to the Market Place upgrade - it's needed if Salisbury is to compete with other towns and cities. Keeping the character of the city is important but the Market will still trade during and after refurbishment.

Salisbury has five park and ride sites with low level entrances on the buses, it may be said an easier way to park than in the city center.

Can't understand the objections to park and ride as so many places are changing to this system.

Other towns and cities embrace change and they are the ones which flourish.

Report this post »

reasonedhuman says...
2:38pm Thu 7 Mar 13

I find this all very frustrating - there are far too many people in our city who are scared of change, don't like change and don't want change.

Open your eyes and see the benefits rather than focusing on things that are changes that you don't like.

The market place is a beautiful area. I have often been stopped by tourists asking on how to get to different parts of the city and then they also comment about how beautiful the buildings that surround the market square are...

How much better will those buildings look without cars in front of them.

Yes I understand disabled people need special parking provision - but why are some so hell bent on the market square/Guildhall (longevity and history is no reason to keep something) - surely being closer to the High Street and Old George Mall will be beneficial - having more options around the city is surely also beneficial.

Why should I have to dodge your cars while walking around the war memorial - this is an area will also see an improvement with the removal of cars.

A nicer and more accessible market place will benefit the city, the market traders and the businesses within the area - I see few negatives!

The park and ride is also good - those who bemoan it tend to be the ones who have never use it. I confess to being one of these. I am now a convert having used it frequently after moving out of the city centre. Its prompt, efficient and excellent value, especially if you are not alone!

Report this post »

amandaday63 says...
6:44pm Thu 7 Mar 13

Having been born and raised in Winterbourne Dauntsey (I have lived in the United States since 1988) I have many fond memories of Salisbury, including the market place, the Guild Hall, and the entire city centre area. While I fully understand the need to modernize or update to keep abreast of the needs of a town's residents and businesses, it seems such a shame that change comes at such a cost...In America, "old" (as it pertains to buildings/infrastruc
ture) means something thats just not modern enough for whoever is currently on the city/county/ state committee/board/comm
ission....I hate that the very thing that foreign visitors love about Salisbury (its quirkiness, its charm, its age-old beauty), is to be removed to make way for a clean, antiseptic approach to planning that will result in a neat and orderly "modern" market and surrounding area that excites no-one, draws no-one, and leaves no lasting impression on those who visit...
Obviously, I am not there in Salisbury right now, but my family remains in the area, we return home when we can, and the people we have shared our home city with have expressed nothing but appreciation for its ability t cling to its heritage, and its refusal to get caught up in the "must modernize everything to make it better" craze...
If you must make changes to the city in order to positively impact its usability, why do these changes have to make it so hard for those who utilize it?
I am saddened when I read Mr Clewers rather haughty I-know-best responses, he appears to have lost his "i'm one of you" attitude and replaced it with one that shows his rather unpleasant self-absorbed approach to getting things accomplished...remem
ber Mr Clewer, whether you like it or not, Salisbury residents (both current and former) DO have the right to raise questions, disagree, and otherwise comment, without having to be put down by your snotty responses regarding the need for them to research more thoroughly...shame on you!
It may suprise you, Mr Clewer, that not everyone wants such drastic changes, at least without more consideration given to local needs, and it would behoove you to listen to Salisbury's residents, both disabled and non-disabled, with respect to the already-committed-to changes for the city center..and at the very least you may wish to consider the fact that one day you yourself may (a) be disabled, or (b) wish to show off our fine city's history and neat quirks, and I bet you would prefer convenience for disabled patrons, and the old-city charm we are famous for, rather than extra complicated travel arrangements and sterile neatly aligned market stalls and absence of local patronage due to parking issues...oh, and lets not forget the beautiful slabs you have authorized, they will of course still look perfect and remain unbroken under the anticipated additional foot traffic in the market square and Guildall, right?
If even the market traders and the residents you claim to represent still have so many unanswered questions, surely, as a good counsellor, you would want to listen to those concerns, legitimately address them, and then make decisions that benefit the majority in ALL areas of the proposed changes...right?
I certainly hope that my comments at least give you pause to re-analyze your approach to modernization and change, as well as how you respond to concerns raised by Salisbury residents,
Thankyou
Amanda Day

Having been born and raised in Winterbourne Dauntsey (I have lived in the United States since 1988) I have many fond memories of Salisbury, including the market place, the Guild Hall, and the entire city centre area. While I fully understand the need to modernize or update to keep abreast of the needs of a town's residents and businesses, it seems such a shame that change comes at such a cost...In America, "old" (as it pertains to buildings/infrastruc ture) means something thats just not modern enough for whoever is currently on the city/county/ state committee/board/comm ission....I hate that the very thing that foreign visitors love about Salisbury (its quirkiness, its charm, its age-old beauty), is to be removed to make way for a clean, antiseptic approach to planning that will result in a neat and orderly "modern" market and surrounding area that excites no-one, draws no-one, and leaves no lasting impression on those who visit... Obviously, I am not there in Salisbury right now, but my family remains in the area, we return home when we can, and the people we have shared our home city with have expressed nothing but appreciation for its ability t cling to its heritage, and its refusal to get caught up in the "must modernize everything to make it better" craze... If you must make changes to the city in order to positively impact its usability, why do these changes have to make it so hard for those who utilize it? I am saddened when I read Mr Clewers rather haughty I-know-best responses, he appears to have lost his "i'm one of you" attitude and replaced it with one that shows his rather unpleasant self-absorbed approach to getting things accomplished...remem ber Mr Clewer, whether you like it or not, Salisbury residents (both current and former) DO have the right to raise questions, disagree, and otherwise comment, without having to be put down by your snotty responses regarding the need for them to research more thoroughly...shame on you! It may suprise you, Mr Clewer, that not everyone wants such drastic changes, at least without more consideration given to local needs, and it would behoove you to listen to Salisbury's residents, both disabled and non-disabled, with respect to the already-committed-to changes for the city center..and at the very least you may wish to consider the fact that one day you yourself may (a) be disabled, or (b) wish to show off our fine city's history and neat quirks, and I bet you would prefer convenience for disabled patrons, and the old-city charm we are famous for, rather than extra complicated travel arrangements and sterile neatly aligned market stalls and absence of local patronage due to parking issues...oh, and lets not forget the beautiful slabs you have authorized, they will of course still look perfect and remain unbroken under the anticipated additional foot traffic in the market square and Guildall, right? If even the market traders and the residents you claim to represent still have so many unanswered questions, surely, as a good counsellor, you would want to listen to those concerns, legitimately address them, and then make decisions that benefit the majority in ALL areas of the proposed changes...right? I certainly hope that my comments at least give you pause to re-analyze your approach to modernization and change, as well as how you respond to concerns raised by Salisbury residents, Thankyou Amanda Day amandaday63

Report this post »

UKD003 says...
7:08pm Thu 7 Mar 13

I cannot believe that somewhere, someplace in this country, we could not have located materials that could work.

Shame on not using something British! Weak excuses.

Our ecomomy is suffering so badly, and shops are closing up left and right all over the city and country, but we choose to spend our money on an imported product.

Report this post »

reasonedhuman says...
9:54pm Thu 7 Mar 13

Amanda Day,

How is repaving the market square going to detract from the surroundings - surely it is better than the mishmash of uneven and badly repaired surfaces that currently blight the square.

America doesn't have any 'real' history Salisbury does - If you love the city so much why not live here and contribute to the local economy rather than complaining from afar.

I feel Mr Clewer does not have to answer to you - only the people who live here and contribute to our community in whatever way that may be.

Report this post »

karlmarx says...
4:31am Fri 8 Mar 13

Before we get carried away with the market square let's cast our minds back some 4 years and see what the Salisbury general public thought should be the priority...
Quote:
"In view of the visions of the dazzling market place, revealed in last week’s Journal, and the complete absence of any response from Cllr Peter Edge to letters on the subject, it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves of the public response to Salisbury Vision.

I have used figures from the Council’s website.
There have been three public surveys – one obtained responses from 5,325 households, one targeted at young people on a website received 102 responses, and one named ‘Our Place’ had a base of either 374-395 people or 705, it is not clear which. When the data is aggregated, the results are as follows:- From 5,817 total responses, 70 per cent were in favour of redesigning Southampton Road, 63 per were in favour of a new public transport interchange, 54 per cent were in favour of an improved market place, and 49 per cent were in favour of redeveloping Churchfields. Notice that the top two responses are to do with improving transport. Cllr Peter Edge’s comment in last week’s Journal, that the redevelopment of Churchfields received strong public support, is puzzling in view of the fact that it received the approval of less than 50 per cent of the public. Even the city’s business leaders, in their rallying call, recognised that an agreed transport plan was an essential part of Salisbury’s redevelopment. So let’s put the horse before the cart and get the ‘must have’ of transport sorted before the ‘also-rans’ of redevelopment"

MMMmmmm, transport plan, Southampton road, public transport interchange top of the list. Which adds weight to some of the comments from the public and the business community regarding why people don't visit Salisbury. The figures show that 'we don't visit Salisbury because the market place needs a revamp' is pretty low on the list of priorities.
So there it is, let's add more traffic to Southampton road and, deter more people from outside Salisbury from coming here by adding another supermarket and now a hotel/diner to the congestion.
Are we all enjoying the latest round of traffic hold ups on the Southampton road. Take a good book with you.

Before we get carried away with the market square let's cast our minds back some 4 years and see what the Salisbury general public thought should be the priority... Quote: "In view of the visions of the dazzling market place, revealed in last week’s Journal, and the complete absence of any response from Cllr Peter Edge to letters on the subject, it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves of the public response to Salisbury Vision. I have used figures from the Council’s website. There have been three public surveys – one obtained responses from 5,325 households, one targeted at young people on a website received 102 responses, and one named ‘Our Place’ had a base of either 374-395 people or 705, it is not clear which. When the data is aggregated, the results are as follows:- From 5,817 total responses, 70 per cent were in favour of redesigning Southampton Road, 63 per were in favour of a new public transport interchange, 54 per cent were in favour of an improved market place, and 49 per cent were in favour of redeveloping Churchfields. Notice that the top two responses are to do with improving transport. Cllr Peter Edge’s comment in last week’s Journal, that the redevelopment of Churchfields received strong public support, is puzzling in view of the fact that it received the approval of less than 50 per cent of the public. Even the city’s business leaders, in their rallying call, recognised that an agreed transport plan was an essential part of Salisbury’s redevelopment. So let’s put the horse before the cart and get the ‘must have’ of transport sorted before the ‘also-rans’ of redevelopment" MMMmmmm, transport plan, Southampton road, public transport interchange top of the list. Which adds weight to some of the comments from the public and the business community regarding why people don't visit Salisbury. The figures show that 'we don't visit Salisbury because the market place needs a revamp' is pretty low on the list of priorities. So there it is, let's add more traffic to Southampton road and, deter more people from outside Salisbury from coming here by adding another supermarket and now a hotel/diner to the congestion. Are we all enjoying the latest round of traffic hold ups on the Southampton road. Take a good book with you. karlmarx

Report this post »

Grampie says...
12:23pm Fri 8 Mar 13

reasonedhuman wrote:
Amanda Day,

How is repaving the market square going to detract from the surroundings - surely it is better than the mishmash of uneven and badly repaired surfaces that currently blight the square.

America doesn't have any 'real' history Salisbury does - If you love the city so much why not live here and contribute to the local economy rather than complaining from afar.

I feel Mr Clewer does not have to answer to you - only the people who live here and contribute to our community in whatever way that may be.

Your comment is a bit sharp to someone who has put forward an honest view.

Thank you, Amanda for a thoughtful input to the discussion.

Report this post »

reasonedhuman says...
1:21pm Fri 8 Mar 13

Grampie,

I suggest that I was not sharp, in fact I deleted the really harsh part.

It is normally you who is sharp and abrupt in response to people whose views you do not share.

I don't understand how removing cars and replacing a poor surface will ever detract from the market square - surely it can only ever improve it?

Someone who lives so far away surely cannot care what the surface of our market square is made from. If they do - they need to gain some other interest in their lives, in their own chosen community.

To those of you saying the surface should have been British bought - well if you want a 50% (plucked from thin air) increase in costs to use British product rather than spend it in other much needed areas in the community then you are mad.

The reason we have to buy things from abroad is because the British work force demands much higher wages than in other parts of the world, there is no way we can compete. This has been the case for at least a decade maybe two - its why we have few mines and barely any steel works.

Here is an a great example - when a Stadium was built in Middlesbrough - home to a huge steel works, that produces the kind of steel products needed to build a stadium - where did they buy the steel? That's right Germany because it was 75% cheaper!

I think Salisbury which is not famed for its Granite or stone is quite right to find the best value for money as an obligation to the tax payers and its community.

Report this post »

Richard Clewer says...
1:39pm Fri 8 Mar 13

Karl, we have a chance to update the market place now. It is not a case of the Market Place or Southampton Road (and lets be honest, to fix Southampton road you would have to have at least the times the budget and even then the Highways agency are responsible for it). We can either improve the Market Place or not improve it. I think it would be extremely foolish to have passed up the opportunity, particularly as it has also allowed me to improve the pavements on New Canal Street.
With regard to the surface, the process we used was to look at the type of surface we needed. It has to be able to take the weight of the Market and Charter Fair. It has to be easy to clean, a level surface for people with mobility issues as well as able to deal with minor utility works and be able to be properly restored afterwards. After we looked at the requirements it was clear that paving slabs such as York Stone would not work. Look around the City at how many cracked ones we have. Granite was by a long way the best surface to use given our requirements. We could use a British stone surface that would crack up and require replacement after a few years. That would however go against the consultation where many people made it clear that they wanted us to lay a surface that would last. As a Council we do buy local when possible, but not when it would mean spending more money on a less useful product.
In response to Amanda, I understand the concern about losing our heritage. The current Market Place surface is a mix of concrete, tarmac, brick paving, York stone paving and other mixed stone level cobbles. It does not show off our Medieval Market place, or the buildings around it in a good light. By removing parking from the square and providing a nice, consistent surface, chosen to compliment the materials in the buildings around the square we will enhance our heritage.
I am sorry if you saw my comments as haughty. I must admit I am somewhat upset that Helen is making incorrect statements about motorcycle parking, the surface we are using and the Guildhall. Helen has done very well in promoting the requirements of disabled people, has been very involved in the Market Place consultation and is well aware of what we are doing there. The decisions about the Market Place were made after a substantial consultation and we are doing what the broader public and business community want to see done to the square. To suggest that we have not listened to people is just not correct. We had over 1,500 responses to a survey along with the working group which we used to come up with the design. The public also approved it at the Area Board meeting where Councillors also made the decision. The problem is that you cannot listen to everyone where people have different views, every time you make a decision, while the majority may agree there will be a minority who don’t.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Clewer

Karl, we have a chance to update the market place now. It is not a case of the Market Place or Southampton Road (and lets be honest, to fix Southampton road you would have to have at least the times the budget and even then the Highways agency are responsible for it). We can either improve the Market Place or not improve it. I think it would be extremely foolish to have passed up the opportunity, particularly as it has also allowed me to improve the pavements on New Canal Street. With regard to the surface, the process we used was to look at the type of surface we needed. It has to be able to take the weight of the Market and Charter Fair. It has to be easy to clean, a level surface for people with mobility issues as well as able to deal with minor utility works and be able to be properly restored afterwards. After we looked at the requirements it was clear that paving slabs such as York Stone would not work. Look around the City at how many cracked ones we have. Granite was by a long way the best surface to use given our requirements. We could use a British stone surface that would crack up and require replacement after a few years. That would however go against the consultation where many people made it clear that they wanted us to lay a surface that would last. As a Council we do buy local when possible, but not when it would mean spending more money on a less useful product. In response to Amanda, I understand the concern about losing our heritage. The current Market Place surface is a mix of concrete, tarmac, brick paving, York stone paving and other mixed stone level cobbles. It does not show off our Medieval Market place, or the buildings around it in a good light. By removing parking from the square and providing a nice, consistent surface, chosen to compliment the materials in the buildings around the square we will enhance our heritage. I am sorry if you saw my comments as haughty. I must admit I am somewhat upset that Helen is making incorrect statements about motorcycle parking, the surface we are using and the Guildhall. Helen has done very well in promoting the requirements of disabled people, has been very involved in the Market Place consultation and is well aware of what we are doing there. The decisions about the Market Place were made after a substantial consultation and we are doing what the broader public and business community want to see done to the square. To suggest that we have not listened to people is just not correct. We had over 1,500 responses to a survey along with the working group which we used to come up with the design. The public also approved it at the Area Board meeting where Councillors also made the decision. The problem is that you cannot listen to everyone where people have different views, every time you make a decision, while the majority may agree there will be a minority who don’t. Yours sincerely, Richard Clewer Richard Clewer

Report this post »

karlmarx says...
1:45pm Fri 8 Mar 13

"someone who lives so far away surely cannot care what the surface our Market square is made from"

And that is exactly the point I have been trying to get over to you all. Visitors and tourists look at the bigger picture. How easy is it to get here and stay here plus, how expensive was it. The shops and tourist attractions, the infrastructure all are part of the experience.

Let's take a typical day and, the approach to Salisbury from say Southampton direction. OMG, the state of the roads, the views of broken fencing, builders rubbish dumps, old boats and plant, rusty old railings, the one hour traffic hold ups, dumped shopping trolleys and litter. The welcoming hoards of 'parking ambassadors', the ever decreasing parking spaces. The damage to your vehicle (quote from my latest MOT report, "pothole damage to front tyres")
Welcoming? I would turn the car around and head back to Westquay shopping mall. The parking is cheaper!
Only £1 after 5 and, 4 hours+ is only £5.
Oh, and the marble looks nice but, it's not important.

Report this post »

reasonedhuman says...
2:46pm Fri 8 Mar 13

karlmarx,

The drive into Salisbury is only partially the responsibility of the city council. They cannot make private land owners and property owners rectify half of which you mention.

The pot holes are being fixed, slowly but they are getting there - that is Wiltshire Council though, not the City Council.

The parking ambassadors I agree with though - the fact that they patrol in pairs or groups is intimidating, though they are also fulfilling a need to keep cars from parking illegally.

I visit a lot of cities all over the world and yes Salisbury has its faults, but so do many others. We don't have a huge graffiti problem that blight so many other cities, the city centre is generally clean and tidy (bar 3/4am on a Saturday or Sunday morning) and the approaches apart from Southampton Road are good with distant views of the cathedral.

They city is not only less busy because parking is expensive, its a multitude of things, economics (both personal and national), the price in the shops compared to the internet. Every town or city centre is less busy, less customers - Salisbury is fairing pretty well compared to other places.

Report this post »

Richard Clewer says...
3:19pm Fri 8 Mar 13

So, if I understand you Karl, you think that until we get the Highways Agency to fix Southampton Road, and the showmen to stop storing vehicles on their land, we should not do anything else in terms of investment in the city?

Do you by any chance work for Winchester or Bournemouth Chamber of Commerce?

I don't think I am going to to sign up to your logic there.

Report this post »

Grampie says...
3:23pm Fri 8 Mar 13

reasonedhuman wrote:
Grampie,

I suggest that I was not sharp, in fact I deleted the really harsh part.

It is normally you who is sharp and abrupt in response to people whose views you do not share.

I don't understand how removing cars and replacing a poor surface will ever detract from the market square - surely it can only ever improve it?

Someone who lives so far away surely cannot care what the surface of our market square is made from. If they do - they need to gain some other interest in their lives, in their own chosen community.

To those of you saying the surface should have been British bought - well if you want a 50% (plucked from thin air) increase in costs to use British product rather than spend it in other much needed areas in the community then you are mad.

The reason we have to buy things from abroad is because the British work force demands much higher wages than in other parts of the world, there is no way we can compete. This has been the case for at least a decade maybe two - its why we have few mines and barely any steel works.

Here is an a great example - when a Stadium was built in Middlesbrough - home to a huge steel works, that produces the kind of steel products needed to build a stadium - where did they buy the steel? That's right Germany because it was 75% cheaper!

I think Salisbury which is not famed for its Granite or stone is quite right to find the best value for money as an obligation to the tax payers and its community.

Me, sharp? Never typed a sharp word in my life. I was just defending her comments because they were a reasonable point of view, irrespective of where she lives.

By your thoughts on the price of granite slabs it sounds that you are happier if British workers are on the dole as long as our streets are paved with cheaper granite slabs. Granite is not a local type of stone is it? Hardly fits in with the local scene. I wonder who the so-called experts were that recommended granite. Slate would be good, there are tons of it in low wage North Wales.

As for British workers demanding high wages, that is a joke. Instead of supporting decent health and safety, we are importing materials who are worked by people with much lower working conditions than people in this country have come to expect.

How about German efficiency following investment and modernisation being a factor in the price of steel.

Bankers get high wages in this country, but ordinary working people these days are just sneered at for asking for a decent wage.

[quote][p][bold]reasonedhuman[/bold] wrote: Grampie, I suggest that I was not sharp, in fact I deleted the really harsh part. It is normally you who is sharp and abrupt in response to people whose views you do not share. I don't understand how removing cars and replacing a poor surface will ever detract from the market square - surely it can only ever improve it? Someone who lives so far away surely cannot care what the surface of our market square is made from. If they do - they need to gain some other interest in their lives, in their own chosen community. To those of you saying the surface should have been British bought - well if you want a 50% (plucked from thin air) increase in costs to use British product rather than spend it in other much needed areas in the community then you are mad. The reason we have to buy things from abroad is because the British work force demands much higher wages than in other parts of the world, there is no way we can compete. This has been the case for at least a decade maybe two - its why we have few mines and barely any steel works. Here is an a great example - when a Stadium was built in Middlesbrough - home to a huge steel works, that produces the kind of steel products needed to build a stadium - where did they buy the steel? That's right Germany because it was 75% cheaper! I think Salisbury which is not famed for its Granite or stone is quite right to find the best value for money as an obligation to the tax payers and its community.[/p][/quote]Me, sharp? Never typed a sharp word in my life. I was just defending her comments because they were a reasonable point of view, irrespective of where she lives. By your thoughts on the price of granite slabs it sounds that you are happier if British workers are on the dole as long as our streets are paved with cheaper granite slabs. Granite is not a local type of stone is it? Hardly fits in with the local scene. I wonder who the so-called experts were that recommended granite. Slate would be good, there are tons of it in low wage North Wales. As for British workers demanding high wages, that is a joke. Instead of supporting decent health and safety, we are importing materials who are worked by people with much lower working conditions than people in this country have come to expect. How about German efficiency following investment and modernisation being a factor in the price of steel. Bankers get high wages in this country, but ordinary working people these days are just sneered at for asking for a decent wage. Grampie

Report this post »

Richard Clewer says...
3:47pm Fri 8 Mar 13

Slate would not be good, it cracks easily under weight.

We need a very tough, high wearing stone and that is why Granite was chosen. It is because it is the best surface for the uses of the market, not because of cost.

We look at the requirements of the Market Place before we looked at costs.

Report this post »

Grampie says...
4:12pm Fri 8 Mar 13

Richard Clewer wrote:
Slate would not be good, it cracks easily under weight.

We need a very tough, high wearing stone and that is why Granite was chosen. It is because it is the best surface for the uses of the market, not because of cost.

We look at the requirements of the Market Place before we looked at costs.

You have never been to the slate areas in North wales, then. Plenty of slate covered areas there. Crushed and mixed it can provide a very attractive surface. Probably cheaper as well

Report this post »

Richard Clewer says...
5:13pm Fri 8 Mar 13

An interesting statement that I have never been to North Wales and the Slate Mines. How do you know that?

Out of interest I was in Snowdonia a couple of years ago, visited the large slate museum and had a discussion about the uses of slate as a surface in a square with one of the slate cutters (the Market Place was picking up steam again then and I thought I would explore the idea). I can assure you from that, Slate is not a suitable surface for the Market Place.

Report this post »

gingin says...
5:21pm Fri 8 Mar 13

For goodness sake stop moaning as far as I understand things the refurbishment is to go ahead. There are plenty of other issues to get your teeth into. Southampton Road, all the development within the Core Strategy, transport and of course the dreaded pot holes!

It's all a bit late to be arguing about surface, parking and whether Salisbury will survive a bit of change.

Report this post »

gingin says...
5:23pm Fri 8 Mar 13

For goodness sake stop moaning as far as I understand things the refurbishment is to go ahead. There are plenty of other issues to get your teeth into. Southampton Road, all the development within the Core Strategy, transport and of course the dreaded pot holes!

It's all a bit late to be arguing about surface, parking and whether Salisbury will survive a bit of change.

Report this post »

Grampie says...
9:27pm Fri 8 Mar 13

Richard Clewer wrote:
An interesting statement that I have never been to North Wales and the Slate Mines. How do you know that?

Out of interest I was in Snowdonia a couple of years ago, visited the large slate museum and had a discussion about the uses of slate as a surface in a square with one of the slate cutters (the Market Place was picking up steam again then and I thought I would explore the idea). I can assure you from that, Slate is not a suitable surface for the Market Place.

It was tongue in cheek.

Report this post »

Helen Farmer says...
1:04am Sat 9 Mar 13

You really ought to check the details of YOUR FACTS Cllr CLEWER.

"The Vision had nothing to do with the Guildhall, that was the responsibility of the City Council."

Really? not according to the vision website:
http://www.salisbury
vision.co.uk/page/Th
e-Guildhall/48/

The Guildhall
This Vision Project has now been completed.

The eighteenth century Guildhall is an important historic building located in the centre of Salisbury within the Market Place. Part of the building, comprising the ‘Oak Court’ and ‘Grand Jury Room’ forms the city’s magistrate’s court service. This will be relocated to a new purpose built building on the Wilton Road in the autumn of 2009. The Guildhall is also used for weddings, wedding receptions, small conferences and other events. The Guildhall is seen as ‘belonging’ to the city and it is important that alternative and appropriate uses are identified for when the courts service vacate the building. The Guildhall is a Grade II* listed building and is located within a designated Conservation Area

Vision Objective:

Establish the Guildhall as the civic base of the new Salisbury City Council and as a focus for other complementary uses.
Proposals:

Following the departure of the Magistrates Courts to their new location, convert the Guildhall into the civic base for the new Salisbury City Council
Any proposals should have due regard to the Listed status, architectural integrity and historic context of the building
Investigate and develop other appropriate and complementary uses such as a venue for conferences and meetings

Rationale:

To ensure that the new city council has an accessible city centre office
To enhance Salisbury city centre by the appropriate re-use of one of the city’s most significant Listed Buildings, following the vacation of the building by the Courts Service
To safeguard the future of this Grade II∗ Listed Building

You really ought to check the details of YOUR 'facts' Cllr CLEWER.

It was verbally stated at the meeting on 1st August that after your very brief experience of using a wheelchair: http://www.salisbury
journal.co.uk/news/9
833931.Councillor_ex
periences_city_from_
a_wheelchair/?ref=rs
s you had realised that the surface would need to be flat, however, the minutes of the meeting made no mention of that, and the surface is simply described as Setts. Sett is another name for cobble.

It was also stated that a sample of the 'flatter setts' would be made available to ensure it was suitable for wheelchair users. Are you saying that DID happen?

"There are currently 12 disabled parking spaces provided. At the end of this process there will be 22 spaces. They will be more evenly distributed around the centre of the city and bring more shops within the 50 meters (although that is changing to 80 I gather from the latest government reviews) of a disabled space".
CllrClewer you really SHOULD check your facts - There were 12 safe off road spaces. These are to be replaced by 10 new off road spaces in New Canal (which will unusable for many, as they REQUIRE the driver to reverse INTO the small space). The additional spaces are on the side of busy one way streets and dangerous for many. There will not be 12 of them. The 50 metre distance has not been extended to 80 Cllr Clewer, the 80 metre figure is the MAXIMUM someone must bedistance someone is able to walk and qualify for a Blue Badge (previously, anyone considered by their GP to have mobility difficulty qualified).

All Motorcycle parking IS being removed from the CITY CENTRE - Brown Street is hardly central.

The country buses ARE being removed form the area where they have unloaded, loaded ad waited for their passengers for over 60 years. ALL buses are used more by elderly people than ANY other group.

"I must admit I am somewhat upset that Helen is making incorrect statements about motorcycle parking, the surface we are using and the Guildhall. "

Not half as upset as I am to find that a Wiltshire Councillor has publicly made unfounded accusations about me which tend to harm my reputation, and bring me into ridicule.

You really ought to check the details of YOUR FACTS Cllr CLEWER. "The Vision had nothing to do with the Guildhall, that was the responsibility of the City Council." Really? not according to the vision website: http://www.salisbury vision.co.uk/page/Th e-Guildhall/48/ The Guildhall This Vision Project has now been completed. The eighteenth century Guildhall is an important historic building located in the centre of Salisbury within the Market Place. Part of the building, comprising the ‘Oak Court’ and ‘Grand Jury Room’ forms the city’s magistrate’s court service. This will be relocated to a new purpose built building on the Wilton Road in the autumn of 2009. The Guildhall is also used for weddings, wedding receptions, small conferences and other events. The Guildhall is seen as ‘belonging’ to the city and it is important that alternative and appropriate uses are identified for when the courts service vacate the building. The Guildhall is a Grade II* listed building and is located within a designated Conservation Area Vision Objective: Establish the Guildhall as the civic base of the new Salisbury City Council and as a focus for other complementary uses. Proposals: Following the departure of the Magistrates Courts to their new location, convert the Guildhall into the civic base for the new Salisbury City Council Any proposals should have due regard to the Listed status, architectural integrity and historic context of the building Investigate and develop other appropriate and complementary uses such as a venue for conferences and meetings Rationale: To ensure that the new city council has an accessible city centre office To enhance Salisbury city centre by the appropriate re-use of one of the city’s most significant Listed Buildings, following the vacation of the building by the Courts Service To safeguard the future of this Grade II∗ Listed Building You really ought to check the details of YOUR 'facts' Cllr CLEWER. It was verbally stated at the meeting on 1st August that after your very brief experience of using a wheelchair: http://www.salisbury journal.co.uk/news/9 833931.Councillor_ex periences_city_from_ a_wheelchair/?ref=rs s you had realised that the surface would need to be flat, however, the minutes of the meeting made no mention of that, and the surface is simply described as Setts. Sett is another name for cobble. It was also stated that a sample of the 'flatter setts' would be made available to ensure it was suitable for wheelchair users. Are you saying that DID happen? "There are currently 12 disabled parking spaces provided. At the end of this process there will be 22 spaces. They will be more evenly distributed around the centre of the city and bring more shops within the 50 meters (although that is changing to 80 I gather from the latest government reviews) of a disabled space". CllrClewer you really SHOULD check your facts - There were 12 safe off road spaces. These are to be replaced by 10 new off road spaces in New Canal (which will unusable for many, as they REQUIRE the driver to reverse INTO the small space). The additional spaces are on the side of busy one way streets and dangerous for many. There will not be 12 of them. The 50 metre distance has not been extended to 80 Cllr Clewer, the 80 metre figure is the MAXIMUM someone must bedistance someone is able to walk and qualify for a Blue Badge (previously, anyone considered by their GP to have mobility difficulty qualified). All Motorcycle parking IS being removed from the CITY CENTRE - Brown Street is hardly central. The country buses ARE being removed form the area where they have unloaded, loaded ad waited for their passengers for over 60 years. ALL buses are used more by elderly people than ANY other group. "I must admit I am somewhat upset that Helen is making incorrect statements about motorcycle parking, the surface we are using and the Guildhall. " Not half as upset as I am to find that a Wiltshire Councillor has publicly made unfounded accusations about me which tend to harm my reputation, and bring me into ridicule. Helen Farmer

Report this post »

Helen Farmer says...
1:09am Sat 9 Mar 13

*MAXIMUM someone is able to walk and still qualify for a Blue Badge. I really am VERY upset about this public attack.

Report this post »

karlmarx says...
2:37pm Sat 9 Mar 13

If it someone else's responsibility to do something then why don't the various councils/agencies work together to get it done?
It's easy to say it's nothing to do with us, it's so and so's responsibility and, leave it at that. That way ensures nothing is done, as we are seeing.
Do the general public now have to track down those responsible for certain roads, lands, by-ways etc...and then point out what is wrong with them and, then organise the remedial work and funding needed?
We don't pay taxes to do this ourselves!

Report this post »

Helen Farmer says...
3:00pm Sat 9 Mar 13

reasoned human: "Yes I understand disabled people need special parking provision - but why are some so hell bent on the market square/Guildhall (longevity and history is no reason to keep something) - surely being closer to the High Street and Old George Mall will be beneficial - having more options around the city is surely also beneficial"

The existing road side spaces are narrower than the prescribed minimum width, are not marked out into individual bays (meaning that people, like myself, who unload wheelchairs form the rear of their vehicle cannot use them for fear of being unable to access their vehicle on return), do not have dropped kerbs (meaning that wheelchair users have to wheel in the road amongst the traffic) and are not sufficiet in number. This is why the safe off road disabled parking spaces in the Guildhall Square, and public spaces in the Market Square are used by large numbers of Blue Badge holders.

The new proposed roadside spaces will be much more difficult and dangerous to use than the safe off road spaces in the Squares, as they are to be on busy bus routes. Although they are to be placed at different locations around the city, since there are only to be one or two at each location and there are nearly 3000 Blue Badges in SP1 & SP2 alone, and over 6300 in all SP post code areas, the chances of securing a space near to where one wishes to go will be remote.

The market public parking offers the only adequate number of parking spaces within 100 metres of
-the library (which offers free internet access, and is used extensively by those disabled people who cannot afford their own computer and broadband)
-Lloyds & Boots Pharmacies (which many chronically sick and disabled people have to visit regularly)
-Natwest, LLoyds TSB, Royal Bank of Scotland & Halifax banks,
-Nationwide building society
-Supermarket

The guidelines on providing Blue Badge parking spaces state that there must be 'an adequate number of convieniently located spaces' to allow easy access to 'essential services' which it states, include banks, post office & supermarket - (and not the clothing, charity, gift shops and cafes which make up the bulk of businesses on the High Street and Old George mall). For those who are ambulant using a walking aid (stick, walker etc) the distance should be no greater than 50 metres, 100 metres for those who walk without aids, and 150 metres for those who use wheelchairs. As only 8% of disabled people are wheelchair users,and in any case you cannot restrict which Blue Badge holders use each space, it is obvious that the 50 metre distance is the relevant one. These distances can be extended, if there are suitable resting places (seats), which means that the Guildhall disabled parking, and the Market public parking meet this criteria. There is nowhere else in Salisbury that does.

Anyone who has a Blue Badge will be able to tell you how difficult it is to secure a disabled parking space in Salisbury on Market Days. The new arrangements will create these diifuculties every day of the week.

Since central Government guidelines issued a year ago restrict the issuing of Blue Badges only to those unable to walk 80 metres, who will have to undergo assessment unless Wiltshire Council is not already aware that they meet the criteria, (where previously anyone, who in the opinion of their GP, had sufficient mobility difficulties could have one), many who currently have a Blue Badge will have their application refused under the new rules when they come to renew (which they must do every three years). Whilst this will reduce the number of Blue Badge holders, it will also result in a large number of older people who no longer qualify for a Blue Badge, but cannot walk from other car parks.

Why older people? well, because they are far more likely than younger disabled people to have been issued with a 'discretionary' badge under the previous GP arrangements. Those younger people (under 60) who have a Blue Badge (who are a far smaller group) are more likely to have an 'automatic entitlement' because they receive the Higher Mobility rate of Disability Living Allowance, by virtue of having documented medical evidence that they are 'unable or virtually unable to walk'.

Although I use a powered wheelchair most of the time, I can walk VERY short distances using a wheeled walker. At the moment, if I park in the corner of the Market car park closest to the Poultry cross, I can walk (with rest stops) to Boots the chemist, somewhere I have to go at least twice a month. I can also access the Nationwide cash point, and the cafes on the square. By parking in the nearest corner of the Guildhall disabled parking area, I can walk with rest stops) to the Natwest bank.

In future I will not be able to do these things. Yes, I know that there is to be a Blue Badge bay on Silver Street, and one on Winchester Street but how likely is it that either will be available when I need it? I cannot self propel a wheelchair, but rely on my powered chair, (which I might add, I had to purchase, and must maintain at my own expense). When this breaks down, I have no way of independently accesing any facilites further than 30 metres from where I can park.

I could use shop mobility, but this Wiltshire Council run facility's equipment is only available from 9.30am - 4.15pm Monday- Saturday (not bank holidays).

I hope this rather long explanation enables you to understand why some of us are 'hell bent' on keeping parking in the Market.

ps. As always, all details have been checked, and sources are available on request.

reasoned human: "Yes I understand disabled people need special parking provision - but why are some so hell bent on the market square/Guildhall (longevity and history is no reason to keep something) - surely being closer to the High Street and Old George Mall will be beneficial - having more options around the city is surely also beneficial" The existing road side spaces are narrower than the prescribed minimum width, are not marked out into individual bays (meaning that people, like myself, who unload wheelchairs form the rear of their vehicle cannot use them for fear of being unable to access their vehicle on return), do not have dropped kerbs (meaning that wheelchair users have to wheel in the road amongst the traffic) and are not sufficiet in number. This is why the safe off road disabled parking spaces in the Guildhall Square, and public spaces in the Market Square are used by large numbers of Blue Badge holders. The new proposed roadside spaces will be much more difficult and dangerous to use than the safe off road spaces in the Squares, as they are to be on busy bus routes. Although they are to be placed at different locations around the city, since there are only to be one or two at each location and there are nearly 3000 Blue Badges in SP1 & SP2 alone, and over 6300 in all SP post code areas, the chances of securing a space near to where one wishes to go will be remote. The market public parking offers the only adequate number of parking spaces within 100 metres of -the library (which offers free internet access, and is used extensively by those disabled people who cannot afford their own computer and broadband) -Lloyds & Boots Pharmacies (which many chronically sick and disabled people have to visit regularly) -Natwest, LLoyds TSB, Royal Bank of Scotland & Halifax banks, -Nationwide building society -Supermarket The guidelines on providing Blue Badge parking spaces state that there must be 'an adequate number of convieniently located spaces' to allow easy access to 'essential services' which it states, include banks, post office & supermarket - (and not the clothing, charity, gift shops and cafes which make up the bulk of businesses on the High Street and Old George mall). For those who are ambulant using a walking aid (stick, walker etc) the distance should be no greater than 50 metres, 100 metres for those who walk without aids, and 150 metres for those who use wheelchairs. As only 8% of disabled people are wheelchair users,and in any case you cannot restrict which Blue Badge holders use each space, it is obvious that the 50 metre distance is the relevant one. These distances can be extended, if there are suitable resting places (seats), which means that the Guildhall disabled parking, and the Market public parking meet this criteria. There is nowhere else in Salisbury that does. Anyone who has a Blue Badge will be able to tell you how difficult it is to secure a disabled parking space in Salisbury on Market Days. The new arrangements will create these diifuculties every day of the week. Since central Government guidelines issued a year ago restrict the issuing of Blue Badges only to those unable to walk 80 metres, who will have to undergo assessment unless Wiltshire Council is not already aware that they meet the criteria, (where previously anyone, who in the opinion of their GP, had sufficient mobility difficulties could have one), many who currently have a Blue Badge will have their application refused under the new rules when they come to renew (which they must do every three years). Whilst this will reduce the number of Blue Badge holders, it will also result in a large number of older people who no longer qualify for a Blue Badge, but cannot walk from other car parks. Why older people? well, because they are far more likely than younger disabled people to have been issued with a 'discretionary' badge under the previous GP arrangements. Those younger people (under 60) who have a Blue Badge (who are a far smaller group) are more likely to have an 'automatic entitlement' because they receive the Higher Mobility rate of Disability Living Allowance, by virtue of having documented medical evidence that they are 'unable or virtually unable to walk'. Although I use a powered wheelchair most of the time, I can walk VERY short distances using a wheeled walker. At the moment, if I park in the corner of the Market car park closest to the Poultry cross, I can walk (with rest stops) to Boots the chemist, somewhere I have to go at least twice a month. I can also access the Nationwide cash point, and the cafes on the square. By parking in the nearest corner of the Guildhall disabled parking area, I can walk with rest stops) to the Natwest bank. In future I will not be able to do these things. Yes, I know that there is to be a Blue Badge bay on Silver Street, and one on Winchester Street but how likely is it that either will be available when I need it? I cannot self propel a wheelchair, but rely on my powered chair, (which I might add, I had to purchase, and must maintain at my own expense). When this breaks down, I have no way of independently accesing any facilites further than 30 metres from where I can park. I could use shop mobility, but this Wiltshire Council run facility's equipment is only available from 9.30am - 4.15pm Monday- Saturday (not bank holidays). I hope this rather long explanation enables you to understand why some of us are 'hell bent' on keeping parking in the Market. ps. As always, all details have been checked, and sources are available on request. Helen Farmer

Report this post »

Grampie says...
6:46pm Mon 11 Mar 13

Somebody was unhappy with you on the TV today, Richard

Report this post »

hillyanne says...
7:46am Wed 13 Mar 13

gingin wrote:
Personally I am looking forward to the Market Place upgrade - it's needed if Salisbury is to compete with other towns and cities. Keeping the character of the city is important but the Market will still trade during and after refurbishment. Salisbury has five park and ride sites with low level entrances on the buses, it may be said an easier way to park than in the city center. Can't understand the objections to park and ride as so many places are changing to this system. Other towns and cities embrace change and they are the ones which flourish.

First sensible letter so far.Why do so many "locals" gripe the moment any change is mooted?Poor Richard Clewer(who,along with all our other councillors has probably spent many(probably dreary) hours in council meetings about all this.) What a thankless task he has when trying to reply to said "gripers".
Come on you good citizens of S'bury.Be positive!

Report this post »

karlmarx says...
1:28pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Fix the infrastructure first, then play with decorations after!

Report this post »

Update on Market Place works (From Salisbury Journal)

Postbag RSS Feed

Update on Market Place works

click2find

Jobs

Dating

Homes

Cars

About cookies