Parking zones go out of control

OF all the parking issues and controversies that have beset Edinburgh, the most contentious of all is the CPZ, or controlled parking zone.

We all expect parking restrictions in the city centre. But it is the inexorable march of zones circling ever-outward from the hub that have the greatest detrimental effect on our neighbourhoods, often without any perceptible benefits.

The good citizens of South Morningside are next on the hit list. And as the council's consultation process to include their area rolls out, residents are currently engaged in a campaign of protest.

They say the zoning is simply another of the council's money-making wheezes and will cause chaos.

Good luck to them, I say. We were gobbled up in the zone extension two years ago. It has indeed caused chaos and block parking where once there was calm and comparatively empty streets. So far, I have perceived no benefits at all.

But you have to admire the council's cleverness and cunning. It insists it has no desire to impose unwanted schemes on residents and that the majority of folk in the zoned areas have pleaded with it for extensions.

That's true . . . but only because the council has created parking mayhem in the first place.

Apart from the city-centre congestion and parking issues faced by every city, Edinburgh has another burden to contend with: the massive number of Victorian tenements. Six flats in a stair? Possibly up to 12 cars? But only one frontage? Clearly there is a need for parking permits and zoning, particularly in vast tenemented areas such as Marchmont.

And that was the picture two years ago. It worked reasonably well, albeit with a few grumbles from those just beyond tenement land who were invaded by commuters parking for free all day and bussing the last few stops into town.

Being just a little further out, things were fine here in the Grange. Most people have garages or driveways. The occasional roadside parker was nothing to complain about and the tree-lined streets were quiet and pretty.

But let's not forget about those a few streets back who had the commuters to contend with. Why, they reasoned, should cheapskates park in front of their house at no cost? The only solution was to apply for the zone to be extended. At least anyone parking at their front gate would have to pay for the privilege. I have some sympathy with them.

And so the next zone was announced, with our street on the outer limit. We were on the frontline.

First to arrive was the ugly street furniture. You have no idea how many signs and poles, how much road painting and how many meters are required. You see them from every window. Once-pleasant walks are now peppered with metallic junk and warning notices.

Are there any more cars parked on my street? No. Why should anyone pay to park in legitimate spaces within the zone when by crossing to the next street, they can park for free? And they do. In their droves. Come 9am, you couldn't find space to park a Dinky car.

Naturally, the residents are not amused. The only solution? Extend the parking zones even further. Like dry rot, it spreads and spreads.

CPZs are not about solving parking issues, except those created by the council in the first place. If zoning had been restricted to the wider city centre and dense areas of tenements, that would have been enough. Instead, like Sisyphus in Greek mythology who was forced to roll a ball up a hill, watch it roll down and start again for all eternity, we are now locked on a pointless course of action. We must extend zones to correct the problems caused by the last ones, although perhaps only until we reach the local authority boundaries.

If the South Morningside campaigners succeed, they will have done an enormous favour to those areas as yet un-zoned by saving them from the same fate and stopping the rot.

Testing time for Leslie

Admittedly Edinburgh's John Leslie seems to have made a right mess of his life so far. He's been foolish, disrespectful to women and caught with his hands in so many hedonistic cookie jars the guy's a walking pick 'n' mix. But it's now got to the stage where it appears anyone can say anything about him with impunity, and I wouldn't blame him for simply having lost the will to fight back.

The latest salvo comes from one Rachel Bentley, who had a one-year relationship with him and claims he is the father of her toddler daughter.

She is outraged that he neither acknowledges nor contributes to the child and has vented her spleen to anyone who will listen. Yet she refused his offer of a DNA test to prove parentage, saying she was insulted.

She's a single parent on little or no income. Forget the insult. Take the test. Get the maintenance. Or shut up.