All day parking charge set to rise

WORKERS could be forced to pay even more to park in Salisbury city centre if Wiltshire Council takes on board the suggestions of Salisbury City Council.

Plans approved by the city council’s policy and resources committee on Monday could see parking for more than five hours rise to £9, while prices for shorter term parking could be reduced to encourage visitors.

Residents were outraged when Wiltshire Council hiked up the all day parking charges in Salisbury to £7.40 in 2011, and workers were among the worst hit.

Now the city council has suggested charges of £1 for an hour (currently £1.40), £2 for two hours (currently £2.50) and £3 for three (currently £4.20), jumping to £5 for four, £7 for five and £9 for over five.

Cllr Tom Corbin, who chaired the working group, said it was important to get the balance right – encouraging shoppers to come to Salisbury and spend more time and money in the city, while still persuading those who want to stay much longer to use the park and ride services.

He said: “It is important that pricing reflects the product. Too high, as currently and people are turned off. Get the price right and people will stay longer. Wiltshire Council will have to accept the possibility there may be a short term drop in car park takings. However, we are confident this will only be a short term blip and income will quickly recover and in time exceed current levels.”

The group also felt the economy of the city would benefit greatly if a ‘pay on exit’ system was put in place in all the car parks and that restrictions that make some car parks short stay only should be removed.

They suggested Sunday parking should be free, and a different charging structure should that prove not to be viable.

Cllr Corbin said: “It’s a work in progress; there’s still lots to achieve. It’s a compromise. We still have to encourage as many as possible to use the park and ride and the only way to expand running hours is to have a greater turnover.

“Wiltshire Council could choose to ignore it but it would be very foolish of tem as we are in the best place to say what we feel the city needs.”

The report will now go to the next full council meeting and if approved will then be sent to Wiltshire Council as the city council’s official position.

Comments (22)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:17am Thu 6 Mar 14

hillyanne says...

Sounds sensible(I think.)
Sounds sensible(I think.) hillyanne
  • Score: -16

9:37am Thu 6 Mar 14

minkleberry says...

Another desperate attempt to force locals to use the white elephants that are the Park & Rides. Perhaps if some of the money was used to resurface the disgrace that is the central car park people might not be so averse to the idea, but once again the Salisbury populace is to be the cash cow. This feels like SDC are turning their back on us.
Another desperate attempt to force locals to use the white elephants that are the Park & Rides. Perhaps if some of the money was used to resurface the disgrace that is the central car park people might not be so averse to the idea, but once again the Salisbury populace is to be the cash cow. This feels like SDC are turning their back on us. minkleberry
  • Score: 19

10:48am Thu 6 Mar 14

dnevi1 says...

A rise of nearly 22% is disgusting - most workers salaries have been frozen or had a small cost of living increase.
Park and Ride is all very well but any adverse weather and they close and anyone working after 7 p.m. can't get back to the Britford Park & Ride as there are no buses.
Clearly the objective is to sell off the car park to a developer and the only way they can justify this is to make sure it is under used by hiking up the charges.
Disgusting !
A rise of nearly 22% is disgusting - most workers salaries have been frozen or had a small cost of living increase. Park and Ride is all very well but any adverse weather and they close and anyone working after 7 p.m. can't get back to the Britford Park & Ride as there are no buses. Clearly the objective is to sell off the car park to a developer and the only way they can justify this is to make sure it is under used by hiking up the charges. Disgusting ! dnevi1
  • Score: 15

11:04am Thu 6 Mar 14

Richard Clewer says...

It is worth noting that this report from the City Council is part of the review of parking. There will be major consultation this year about parking and I would urge anyone who has a view to make sure they respond to Wiltshire Council when it starts.

There is a working group of the Vision looking at parking which includes the business community, tourism, City and Wiltshire politicans and others. it will also be making recommendations at the request of Jane Scott on parking in the City (both numbers of spaces and prices). That group is asking for shop staff to be given a discount on Park and Ride tickets.

There are lots of views about parking. I think we need to see a reduction in most charges but we are going to have to work out how to pay for it. The revenue from parking not used for running the car parks is all spent on bus subsidies and the buses are vital to people in the smaller towns and villages who don't have a car.
It is worth noting that this report from the City Council is part of the review of parking. There will be major consultation this year about parking and I would urge anyone who has a view to make sure they respond to Wiltshire Council when it starts. There is a working group of the Vision looking at parking which includes the business community, tourism, City and Wiltshire politicans and others. it will also be making recommendations at the request of Jane Scott on parking in the City (both numbers of spaces and prices). That group is asking for shop staff to be given a discount on Park and Ride tickets. There are lots of views about parking. I think we need to see a reduction in most charges but we are going to have to work out how to pay for it. The revenue from parking not used for running the car parks is all spent on bus subsidies and the buses are vital to people in the smaller towns and villages who don't have a car. Richard Clewer
  • Score: -6

1:01pm Thu 6 Mar 14

minkleberry says...

How can a city as small as Salisbury, officially the 13th smallest in Great Britain, warrant the number of Park and Rides we have? There is absolutely no justification for them, the number of sets of non-synchronized traffic lights, the ridiculous bus parking. There seems to be nobody who gives a **** about the local peoples wants and needs any more. Someone somewhere decides what is best for the majority, whether it is needed or not, and another piece on the monopoly board gets moved. Slightly off topic, but take the proposed demolition of Tesco. That is going to cause utter chaos on Castle Street, what with vans parked up all day, lorries, temporary traffic lights. Businesses on that side of Salisbury WILL suffer. Southampton Road is another example of moronic planning, yet more and more shops appear there. In the past, SDC was always seen as a buffer from the idiocy of Trowbridge. The devolution of power has brought this city to its knees and the powers that be appear to be watching from their ivory towers with disinterest. Every time I hear of some new scheme, each more outrageous than the last, my heart sinks. I used to be proud of being from Salisbury, now it is an embarrassment.
How can a city as small as Salisbury, officially the 13th smallest in Great Britain, warrant the number of Park and Rides we have? There is absolutely no justification for them, the number of sets of non-synchronized traffic lights, the ridiculous bus parking. There seems to be nobody who gives a **** about the local peoples wants and needs any more. Someone somewhere decides what is best for the majority, whether it is needed or not, and another piece on the monopoly board gets moved. Slightly off topic, but take the proposed demolition of Tesco. That is going to cause utter chaos on Castle Street, what with vans parked up all day, lorries, temporary traffic lights. Businesses on that side of Salisbury WILL suffer. Southampton Road is another example of moronic planning, yet more and more shops appear there. In the past, SDC was always seen as a buffer from the idiocy of Trowbridge. The devolution of power has brought this city to its knees and the powers that be appear to be watching from their ivory towers with disinterest. Every time I hear of some new scheme, each more outrageous than the last, my heart sinks. I used to be proud of being from Salisbury, now it is an embarrassment. minkleberry
  • Score: 20

1:25pm Thu 6 Mar 14

isouthwood says...

The council make me laugh… Yesterday morning I saw a completely empty (driver excepted) Park'n'Ride bus heading out of town up Castle Road, and I thought What a brilliant idea! Think of the fuel saved by not having to carry passengers. Think of the economics of not having to stop and hold up the traffic just to let passengers board/leave. We should promote an increased occurrence of empty buses, especially anywhere around the main residences of everyone who plays a key role in blocking all the bypass propositions.
The council make me laugh… Yesterday morning I saw a completely empty (driver excepted) Park'n'Ride bus heading out of town up Castle Road, and I thought What a brilliant idea! Think of the fuel saved by not having to carry passengers. Think of the economics of not having to stop and hold up the traffic just to let passengers board/leave. We should promote an increased occurrence of empty buses, especially anywhere around the main residences of everyone who plays a key role in blocking all the bypass propositions. isouthwood
  • Score: 13

1:42pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Richard Clewer says...

There is no way I think we can justify the number of Park and Ride sites we have, or the cost of running them. They were set up by the District Council (not Trowbridge) with government funding after the bypass plan colapsed. I was not involved in Salisbury politics at that point.

The problem now is that if we close the park and rides we have to given central government the money back (which would be a major problem and waste rather than the relatively minor costs of running them).

We have arranged for park and rides tickets to be used on other buses on similar routes to extend the operating hours and usage is steadily climbing.

The bigger issue to my mind is that the old Salisbury District Council agreed a transport strategy which essentially involved reducing city centre parking and promoting Park and Ride to decrease conjestion in the City. That was consulted on at the time but I get the impression that it was not well understood by the general public. We now need a better assesment of what the residents of Salisbury and the surrounding area want to see happen to parking in the future. We also need to understand what capacity we need to provide. Central Car Park was pretty busy last Saturday for example and we don't want to do work to increase the retail and leisure offer of the City only to loose visitors because of reduced parking. Increasing Culver Street's usage is one way to help with this (it is currently only used at about 11% capacity.
There is no way I think we can justify the number of Park and Ride sites we have, or the cost of running them. They were set up by the District Council (not Trowbridge) with government funding after the bypass plan colapsed. I was not involved in Salisbury politics at that point. The problem now is that if we close the park and rides we have to given central government the money back (which would be a major problem and waste rather than the relatively minor costs of running them). We have arranged for park and rides tickets to be used on other buses on similar routes to extend the operating hours and usage is steadily climbing. The bigger issue to my mind is that the old Salisbury District Council agreed a transport strategy which essentially involved reducing city centre parking and promoting Park and Ride to decrease conjestion in the City. That was consulted on at the time but I get the impression that it was not well understood by the general public. We now need a better assesment of what the residents of Salisbury and the surrounding area want to see happen to parking in the future. We also need to understand what capacity we need to provide. Central Car Park was pretty busy last Saturday for example and we don't want to do work to increase the retail and leisure offer of the City only to loose visitors because of reduced parking. Increasing Culver Street's usage is one way to help with this (it is currently only used at about 11% capacity. Richard Clewer
  • Score: 5

1:47pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Old Salisbury Boy says...

Why is it the the mere mention of the words Wiltshire and Jane Scott automatically suggest failure and not listening?
Why is it the the mere mention of the words Wiltshire and Jane Scott automatically suggest failure and not listening? Old Salisbury Boy
  • Score: 16

2:30pm Thu 6 Mar 14

karlmarx says...

"The problem now is that if we close the park and rides we have to given central government the money back (which would be a major problem and waste rather than the relatively minor costs of running them)."

But Wiltshire Councils own website states that it is costing on average £1 million per year to subsidise the park and ride. Isn't that included in the running costs? If not it should be.
"The problem now is that if we close the park and rides we have to given central government the money back (which would be a major problem and waste rather than the relatively minor costs of running them)." But Wiltshire Councils own website states that it is costing on average £1 million per year to subsidise the park and ride. Isn't that included in the running costs? If not it should be. karlmarx
  • Score: 9

3:29pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Old Salisbury Boy says...

Richard Clewer wrote:
There is no way I think we can justify the number of Park and Ride sites we have, or the cost of running them. They were set up by the District Council (not Trowbridge) with government funding after the bypass plan colapsed. I was not involved in Salisbury politics at that point.

The problem now is that if we close the park and rides we have to given central government the money back (which would be a major problem and waste rather than the relatively minor costs of running them).

We have arranged for park and rides tickets to be used on other buses on similar routes to extend the operating hours and usage is steadily climbing.

The bigger issue to my mind is that the old Salisbury District Council agreed a transport strategy which essentially involved reducing city centre parking and promoting Park and Ride to decrease conjestion in the City. That was consulted on at the time but I get the impression that it was not well understood by the general public. We now need a better assesment of what the residents of Salisbury and the surrounding area want to see happen to parking in the future. We also need to understand what capacity we need to provide. Central Car Park was pretty busy last Saturday for example and we don't want to do work to increase the retail and leisure offer of the City only to loose visitors because of reduced parking. Increasing Culver Street's usage is one way to help with this (it is currently only used at about 11% capacity.
Richard Clewer wrote: The problem now is that if we close the park and rides we have to given central government the money back (which would be a major problem and waste rather than the relatively minor costs of running them).

Are sure that is fact? I understood that the P+R's were designed and built so that they could be easily converted into light industrial estates if the P+R experiment failed.
The money came from Central Government to make up for the cancellation of the by pass which had shown to be needed and essential for the City but was turned down purely on environmental grounds, upon the intervention of John Prescott. Many at the time saw it purely as a political decision and had little to do with Salisbury, hence the money given for P+R's and a wider bus subsidy which eventually cost more than the by-pass!
.
[quote][p][bold]Richard Clewer[/bold] wrote: There is no way I think we can justify the number of Park and Ride sites we have, or the cost of running them. They were set up by the District Council (not Trowbridge) with government funding after the bypass plan colapsed. I was not involved in Salisbury politics at that point. The problem now is that if we close the park and rides we have to given central government the money back (which would be a major problem and waste rather than the relatively minor costs of running them). We have arranged for park and rides tickets to be used on other buses on similar routes to extend the operating hours and usage is steadily climbing. The bigger issue to my mind is that the old Salisbury District Council agreed a transport strategy which essentially involved reducing city centre parking and promoting Park and Ride to decrease conjestion in the City. That was consulted on at the time but I get the impression that it was not well understood by the general public. We now need a better assesment of what the residents of Salisbury and the surrounding area want to see happen to parking in the future. We also need to understand what capacity we need to provide. Central Car Park was pretty busy last Saturday for example and we don't want to do work to increase the retail and leisure offer of the City only to loose visitors because of reduced parking. Increasing Culver Street's usage is one way to help with this (it is currently only used at about 11% capacity.[/p][/quote]Richard Clewer wrote: The problem now is that if we close the park and rides we have to given central government the money back (which would be a major problem and waste rather than the relatively minor costs of running them). Are sure that is fact? I understood that the P+R's were designed and built so that they could be easily converted into light industrial estates if the P+R experiment failed. The money came from Central Government to make up for the cancellation of the by pass which had shown to be needed and essential for the City but was turned down purely on environmental grounds, upon the intervention of John Prescott. Many at the time saw it purely as a political decision and had little to do with Salisbury, hence the money given for P+R's and a wider bus subsidy which eventually cost more than the by-pass! . Old Salisbury Boy
  • Score: 15

8:33pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Schoolmum999 says...

We all get it that money is tight, but giving with one hand and taking with another is not the answer.

The long and short of it is; high parking charges stop people coming into the city. Salisbury needs more visitors not fewer.
We all get it that money is tight, but giving with one hand and taking with another is not the answer. The long and short of it is; high parking charges stop people coming into the city. Salisbury needs more visitors not fewer. Schoolmum999
  • Score: 12

9:27pm Thu 6 Mar 14

CommonSenseTime says...

This is disgusting. So a couple of small reductions in the short-stay costs; in other words placate the customers who 'pop by' to the shops. I'm sorry, but a 50p reduction to help those customers does not in any way justify the £1.60 per day (£8 per week! £32 per month!!!!) increase for workers! What on earth is going on in their minds. Maybe WCC staff have increases of £32+ net per month, the rest of us don't. As has been said many times before, the park and ride is not the answer to this. It closes far too early for many workers, especially those with two jobs. It's too early for an April fool.

Unbelievable!!!!
This is disgusting. So a couple of small reductions in the short-stay costs; in other words placate the customers who 'pop by' to the shops. I'm sorry, but a 50p reduction to help those customers does not in any way justify the £1.60 per day (£8 per week! £32 per month!!!!) increase for workers! What on earth is going on in their minds. Maybe WCC staff have increases of £32+ net per month, the rest of us don't. As has been said many times before, the park and ride is not the answer to this. It closes far too early for many workers, especially those with two jobs. It's too early for an April fool. Unbelievable!!!! CommonSenseTime
  • Score: 10

10:31pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Sustainer says...

This is not a WCC initiative. Tom Corbin is leading on this and he is a Labour City Councillor. Rather than just making your points on this thread it would be better to contact Tom or your local Ward Councillor and put your points to them. In that way you can be certain that your views will be heard. It would also be helpful if you could suggest a realistic alternative solution with costings that support your assertions.
This is not a WCC initiative. Tom Corbin is leading on this and he is a Labour City Councillor. Rather than just making your points on this thread it would be better to contact Tom or your local Ward Councillor and put your points to them. In that way you can be certain that your views will be heard. It would also be helpful if you could suggest a realistic alternative solution with costings that support your assertions. Sustainer
  • Score: 4

12:23am Fri 7 Mar 14

dauwalder1 says...

Yet another case of some Councillors just not getting it. Salisbury is a commercial centre with businesses and public facilities. City centres need to be competitive. The current parking charges have made our city uncompetitive since April 2011 driving shoppers and visitors to Winchester, Poole, Southampton, Basingstoke and Poole ALL of whom charge £1 or less to shoppers who park up to 5 hours.
Why is it that our Councillors don't want visitors in our city for more than 3 hours? what is the need to charge £5 for 4 hours. Clearly our Councillors just pluck these numbers out of the air or perhaps want to see more empty shops in this city and it's pretty clear that most of them do not have a clue about how retail works and the importance of keeping our city competitive.

It's a recognised fact that on the whole shoppers judge an area by its parking charges before considering the fuel they will use. Why complicate things just charge £1 per hour all day, whether they park for 1 hour or 10 hours. Those that need to park for long periods then have the option to use Park and Ride. In addition to this Wincherster is much busier on a Sunday than Salisbury because they don't charge to park on a Sunday.
Yet another case of some Councillors just not getting it. Salisbury is a commercial centre with businesses and public facilities. City centres need to be competitive. The current parking charges have made our city uncompetitive since April 2011 driving shoppers and visitors to Winchester, Poole, Southampton, Basingstoke and Poole ALL of whom charge £1 or less to shoppers who park up to 5 hours. Why is it that our Councillors don't want visitors in our city for more than 3 hours? what is the need to charge £5 for 4 hours. Clearly our Councillors just pluck these numbers out of the air or perhaps want to see more empty shops in this city and it's pretty clear that most of them do not have a clue about how retail works and the importance of keeping our city competitive. It's a recognised fact that on the whole shoppers judge an area by its parking charges before considering the fuel they will use. Why complicate things just charge £1 per hour all day, whether they park for 1 hour or 10 hours. Those that need to park for long periods then have the option to use Park and Ride. In addition to this Wincherster is much busier on a Sunday than Salisbury because they don't charge to park on a Sunday. dauwalder1
  • Score: 10

1:46am Fri 7 Mar 14

dauwalder1 says...

Sustainer wrote:
This is not a WCC initiative. Tom Corbin is leading on this and he is a Labour City Councillor. Rather than just making your points on this thread it would be better to contact Tom or your local Ward Councillor and put your points to them. In that way you can be certain that your views will be heard. It would also be helpful if you could suggest a realistic alternative solution with costings that support your assertions.
It's much better to lobby Wiltshire a Councillors, either your own ward councillor or city centre Wilts Councillors like Helena McKeown or Richard Clewer rather than City Councillors. It's very unfortunate that this whole process is going to take up to a year with a view to implementation of any resulting changes in April 2015.
[quote][p][bold]Sustainer[/bold] wrote: This is not a WCC initiative. Tom Corbin is leading on this and he is a Labour City Councillor. Rather than just making your points on this thread it would be better to contact Tom or your local Ward Councillor and put your points to them. In that way you can be certain that your views will be heard. It would also be helpful if you could suggest a realistic alternative solution with costings that support your assertions.[/p][/quote]It's much better to lobby Wiltshire a Councillors, either your own ward councillor or city centre Wilts Councillors like Helena McKeown or Richard Clewer rather than City Councillors. It's very unfortunate that this whole process is going to take up to a year with a view to implementation of any resulting changes in April 2015. dauwalder1
  • Score: 2

1:58am Fri 7 Mar 14

dauwalder1 says...

dnevi1 wrote:
A rise of nearly 22% is disgusting - most workers salaries have been frozen or had a small cost of living increase.
Park and Ride is all very well but any adverse weather and they close and anyone working after 7 p.m. can't get back to the Britford Park & Ride as there are no buses.
Clearly the objective is to sell off the car park to a developer and the only way they can justify this is to make sure it is under used by hiking up the charges.
Disgusting !
I was an objector to P&R when they were propose in the 90s and made representations against on behalf of a local pressure group at 2 public inquiries. Now we've got them we've got to make them work. They work in many other cities including ones similar to Salisbury such as Winchester and Canterbury. It's just that successive councils haven't offered enough encouragement to make commuters use them. Making it more expensive to park for 6-10 hours is the method they use in Winchester and Canterbury. In Canterbury they charge just £1.50 per car on P&R. If more people used it here, drivers would be in a much stronger position to pressure the council to increase opening hours and improve services around it.
[quote][p][bold]dnevi1[/bold] wrote: A rise of nearly 22% is disgusting - most workers salaries have been frozen or had a small cost of living increase. Park and Ride is all very well but any adverse weather and they close and anyone working after 7 p.m. can't get back to the Britford Park & Ride as there are no buses. Clearly the objective is to sell off the car park to a developer and the only way they can justify this is to make sure it is under used by hiking up the charges. Disgusting ![/p][/quote]I was an objector to P&R when they were propose in the 90s and made representations against on behalf of a local pressure group at 2 public inquiries. Now we've got them we've got to make them work. They work in many other cities including ones similar to Salisbury such as Winchester and Canterbury. It's just that successive councils haven't offered enough encouragement to make commuters use them. Making it more expensive to park for 6-10 hours is the method they use in Winchester and Canterbury. In Canterbury they charge just £1.50 per car on P&R. If more people used it here, drivers would be in a much stronger position to pressure the council to increase opening hours and improve services around it. dauwalder1
  • Score: 7

12:18pm Fri 7 Mar 14

karlmarx says...

Park and ride isn't a substitute for a bypass, how can it be? A bypass is designed to take through traffic away from a city, park and ride has nothing at all to do with through traffic.
Park and ride isn't a substitute for a bypass, how can it be? A bypass is designed to take through traffic away from a city, park and ride has nothing at all to do with through traffic. karlmarx
  • Score: 8

1:18pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Richard Clewer says...

I agree that Park and Ride sites have little to do with the bypass. That was however the logic for them being built after the bypass fell through.

I first looked at the option of not carrying on with Park and Ride while a Salisbury District Councillor. I was told then that the cost of repayment to the government was around £60 million which to put in mildly surprised me. I will see if I can confirm it now. We do have to remember that Park and Ride is now starting to work. It is not a break even yet but getting close for some of the sites.

The key here is the way parking prices are set for all car parks in and around the City. Can I please urge you all to send your thoughts in either to me or to Councillor Thomson when the consultation formally starts (probably this month or early next month).

The ideas put forward in this article are the suggestions of the City Council working group. They are not guaranteed to be implemented but are part of the consultation process.
I agree that Park and Ride sites have little to do with the bypass. That was however the logic for them being built after the bypass fell through. I first looked at the option of not carrying on with Park and Ride while a Salisbury District Councillor. I was told then that the cost of repayment to the government was around £60 million which to put in mildly surprised me. I will see if I can confirm it now. We do have to remember that Park and Ride is now starting to work. It is not a break even yet but getting close for some of the sites. The key here is the way parking prices are set for all car parks in and around the City. Can I please urge you all to send your thoughts in either to me or to Councillor Thomson when the consultation formally starts (probably this month or early next month). The ideas put forward in this article are the suggestions of the City Council working group. They are not guaranteed to be implemented but are part of the consultation process. Richard Clewer
  • Score: 1

3:21pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Old Salisbury Boy says...

Of course when ALL the Central car park closes for 3 years for the 'Maltings' re-development there will be no where else to park but the Park and Ride sites, no doubt while that happens Wiltshire Council will be charging £10.00 a day to park!
I guess people may even park in the Culver St. multi Storey!
Of course when ALL the Central car park closes for 3 years for the 'Maltings' re-development there will be no where else to park but the Park and Ride sites, no doubt while that happens Wiltshire Council will be charging £10.00 a day to park! I guess people may even park in the Culver St. multi Storey! Old Salisbury Boy
  • Score: 11

9:48pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Morello says...

Let's try a different starting point - all parking is free.
Let's try a different starting point - all parking is free. Morello
  • Score: 5

8:57am Sat 8 Mar 14

karlmarx says...

Old Salisbury Boy wrote:
Of course when ALL the Central car park closes for 3 years for the 'Maltings' re-development there will be no where else to park but the Park and Ride sites, no doubt while that happens Wiltshire Council will be charging £10.00 a day to park!
I guess people may even park in the Culver St. multi Storey!
There is lots of parking in Andover, Bournemouth, Poole, Basingstoke, Winchester, Eastleigh, Southampton etc... and a lot cheaper too. We drive a full car to Bournemouth, free parking, money saved pays for fuel twice over. Lots of open shops, weekly shop done, home again, no problems. Road surfaces marginally better as well so less damage to car as an added bonus.
Cue negative voting for being a 'disloyal' Salisbury resident.
[quote][p][bold]Old Salisbury Boy[/bold] wrote: Of course when ALL the Central car park closes for 3 years for the 'Maltings' re-development there will be no where else to park but the Park and Ride sites, no doubt while that happens Wiltshire Council will be charging £10.00 a day to park! I guess people may even park in the Culver St. multi Storey![/p][/quote]There is lots of parking in Andover, Bournemouth, Poole, Basingstoke, Winchester, Eastleigh, Southampton etc... and a lot cheaper too. We drive a full car to Bournemouth, free parking, money saved pays for fuel twice over. Lots of open shops, weekly shop done, home again, no problems. Road surfaces marginally better as well so less damage to car as an added bonus. Cue negative voting for being a 'disloyal' Salisbury resident. karlmarx
  • Score: 4

12:03pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Cadesupfront says...

Only £6 all day at the Cathedral!
Only £6 all day at the Cathedral! Cadesupfront
  • 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