![]() |
|
| Eastbourne and Willingdon Liberal Democrats | <office@eastbournelibdems.org.uk> |
Pay to park scheme still on say Conservatives4.16.00pm UTC (GMT +0000) Thu 6th Apr 2006
Despite assurances from local Tories that they have listened to the views of local people and are now opposed to their own "Pay to Park" scheme, it now appears that County Council Tories intend to go ahead regardless of this statement! In a response to a written question from Eastbourne's Liberal Democrat Leader David Tutt, Conservative Cabinet member Matthew Lock said "I remain committed to the principle of civil parking enforcement" he also warned against "reaching premature conclusions based, for example, on newspaper reports". Cllr Lock admitted that the consultation exercise has already cost public funds £55,000 out of the budget of £100,000 that the Tories set aside for this work. When challenged by David Tutt to "end this expenditure now in light of the overwhelming opposition to the scheme", Cllr Lock refused to do so and made it clear that he intends that what he calls "civil parking" will come to Eastbourne. David Tutt said that "the fact that the vast majority of local people are opposed to this scheme is very clear and it is time to stop wasting public money attempting to justify something that residents just do not want", David continued to explain that it is the belief of the Liberal Democrats that local Tories, running scared of defeat in the May elections are now seeking to blame their County Council colleagues for taking an unpopular decision. David said "this cannot be believed as several of them are on both Councils and if Eastbourne Borough Council says an emphatic 'No' to this now, it will be almost impossible for the County to introduce it". The Liberal Democrats will be calling upon the whole of the Borough Council to reject these plans at the Council meeting on 19th April.
Bookmark this story at:
Published and promoted by Eastbourne Liberal Democrats, 100 Seaside Road, Eastbourne BN21 3PF The views expressed are those of the party, not of the service provider. |