Firefighters forced to abandon fire engines

1:30pm Monday 25th February 2013 in News

Firefighters forced to abandon fire engines Firefighters forced to abandon fire engines

WORRIED residents in a street plagued by parking chaos watched as firemen had to leave two engines at the top of the road and walk to a house where there was a suspected fire.

People in Holland Road, Westcliff say they are sick of parking problems in their road and were amazed when the engines were forced to park at the top of the street when it looked like they couldn’t get access.

Crews then had to trudge down the road on foot on Tuesday afternoon, but luckily the call had only been a false alarm.

Julian Lowes, chairman of Milton Community Group, said: “People are worried about emergency services reaching them. This call-out was probably very minor by the look of it but what happend if there was a raging fire? They will have to run hoses all the way down Holland Road or all the way down from the seafront. “

It’s not the best way to fight a fire, especially as there are so many elderly residents in the area.” P

arking pressures in the area have reached boiling point with many residents blaming Southend Council for letting homes be converted into flats.

The extra people they house have been clamouring to park in the street along with commuters who use Westcliff railway station.

Cheryl Hindle-Terry, Southend Council’s Team Leader of the Parking, Traffic Management and Road Safety Team, said: “Holland Road is not subject to parking restrictions and vehicles regularly park on both sides of the road. “

However we do work closely with the Fire Service and if they identify a parking concern, we will of course propose action to avoid any potential delays to emergency situations.”

She said they had surveyed residents in streets around Westcliff railway station in 2011 about parking controls .

Comments(34)

Shoebury_Cyclist says...
1:37pm Mon 25 Feb 13

This is why we need strict parking control.

Report this post »

smiffy1980 says...
1:45pm Mon 25 Feb 13

the main issues are that many of the houses around this area have been converted into flats. This has caused over population in the area and as a result more cars are parking on the streets outside their properties. People are entitled to park on the street where legal to do so and this im afraid will not change and not go away.

Report this post »

I hate the police says...
2:14pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Parking is legal. If there are no restrictions then people can park where they like. Perhaps the council should stop wasting money on things like the city beach, water fountains and stupid flashing lights, and build proper FREE car parks in the area. How does that sound? Problem solved in my eyes.

Report this post »

Shoebury_Cyclist says...
2:31pm Mon 25 Feb 13

I hate the police wrote:
Parking is legal. If there are no restrictions then people can park where they like. Perhaps the council should stop wasting money on things like the city beach, water fountains and stupid flashing lights, and build proper FREE car parks in the area. How does that sound? Problem solved in my eyes.
If the council builds them they won't be free because the cost of construction will come out of our council tax.

A better solution is to insist all residential planning applications include adequate off-street parking in the design.

Report this post »

Carnabackable says...
2:53pm Mon 25 Feb 13

In the good old days, a tender would have simply brushed those cars aside,wing mirrors lying all over the place...

Report this post »

John T Pharro says...
4:11pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
This is why we need strict parking control.
What is needed is sensible parking strictly controlled. Just like we need cyclist with helmets, lights, riding sensible on the roads not the pavements and strictly controlled. As well as sensible drivers not speeding or using mobile phones when driving strictly controlled.

Report this post »

DogsMessInLeigh says...
4:13pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Tenders where much smaller then and some were pulled by horses....but then there where less vehicles or carriages on the roads...its a no win situation.

Report this post »

Shoebury_Cyclist says...
4:23pm Mon 25 Feb 13

John T Pharro wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
This is why we need strict parking control.
What is needed is sensible parking strictly controlled. Just like we need cyclist with helmets, lights, riding sensible on the roads not the pavements and strictly controlled. As well as sensible drivers not speeding or using mobile phones when driving strictly controlled.
Even though the story is about a road overly congested with parked CARS blocking access for the emergency services, you choose to use it to have a go at cyclists?

Grow up.

Ps. Cycle helmets are not a legal requirement. And neither are cycle lights during daylight hours.

Report this post »

HadleighBoy says...
4:24pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Pretty sure that if this had not been a false alarm then the Fire Engines would have just ploughed through.

Report this post »

John T Pharro says...
4:31pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
This is why we need strict parking control.
What is needed is sensible parking strictly controlled. Just like we need cyclist with helmets, lights, riding sensible on the roads not the pavements and strictly controlled. As well as sensible drivers not speeding or using mobile phones when driving strictly controlled.
Even though the story is about a road overly congested with parked CARS blocking access for the emergency services, you choose to use it to have a go at cyclists?

Grow up.

Ps. Cycle helmets are not a legal requirement. And neither are cycle lights during daylight hours.
Me grow up you grow up I am criticising BAD cyclists. I also criticised bad car driving as well and bad parking. Stop nit picking sensible cyclist should wear helmets and of course lights are only needed at night on cycles. You are just paranoid about cyclist and think your opinion is the only one that counts. That is obvious from your posts on every subject.
Were you not the one who said "when you insult you have lost the argument"? You done it before and just done it again.

Report this post »

whateverhappened says...
4:51pm Mon 25 Feb 13

All cars down this road were parked legally, this as stated before is a problem of the councils making by allowing the over development of the large edwardian houses.

Report this post »

John T Pharro says...
5:00pm Mon 25 Feb 13

whateverhappened wrote:
All cars down this road were parked legally, this as stated before is a problem of the councils making by allowing the over development of the large edwardian houses.
Cannot disagree with that, but how do you solve the problem of the fire engines being unable to get through?

Report this post »

Shoebury_Cyclist says...
5:16pm Mon 25 Feb 13

John T Pharro wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
This is why we need strict parking control.
What is needed is sensible parking strictly controlled. Just like we need cyclist with helmets, lights, riding sensible on the roads not the pavements and strictly controlled. As well as sensible drivers not speeding or using mobile phones when driving strictly controlled.
Even though the story is about a road overly congested with parked CARS blocking access for the emergency services, you choose to use it to have a go at cyclists?

Grow up.

Ps. Cycle helmets are not a legal requirement. And neither are cycle lights during daylight hours.
Me grow up you grow up I am criticising BAD cyclists. I also criticised bad car driving as well and bad parking. Stop nit picking sensible cyclist should wear helmets and of course lights are only needed at night on cycles. You are just paranoid about cyclist and think your opinion is the only one that counts. That is obvious from your posts on every subject.
Were you not the one who said "when you insult you have lost the argument"? You done it before and just done it again.
I have said nothing about cyclists, you chose to bring cyclists into the conversation in a childish attempt at point scoring.
I suggest you read it again, it's a story exclusively about a street so clogged with parked CARS that the emergency services could not get to their call-out.

Report this post »

John T Pharro says...
5:25pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
This is why we need strict parking control.
What is needed is sensible parking strictly controlled. Just like we need cyclist with helmets, lights, riding sensible on the roads not the pavements and strictly controlled. As well as sensible drivers not speeding or using mobile phones when driving strictly controlled.
Even though the story is about a road overly congested with parked CARS blocking access for the emergency services, you choose to use it to have a go at cyclists?

Grow up.

Ps. Cycle helmets are not a legal requirement. And neither are cycle lights during daylight hours.
Me grow up you grow up I am criticising BAD cyclists. I also criticised bad car driving as well and bad parking. Stop nit picking sensible cyclist should wear helmets and of course lights are only needed at night on cycles. You are just paranoid about cyclist and think your opinion is the only one that counts. That is obvious from your posts on every subject.
Were you not the one who said "when you insult you have lost the argument"? You done it before and just done it again.
I have said nothing about cyclists, you chose to bring cyclists into the conversation in a childish attempt at point scoring.
I suggest you read it again, it's a story exclusively about a street so clogged with parked CARS that the emergency services could not get to their call-out.
By your own comments. You insulted (as usual) so have lost the argument.
What was it you called someone on the spy cars article? "A moronic dribbler". Clearly list that argument as well.

Report this post »

Shoebury_Cyclist says...
5:39pm Mon 25 Feb 13

John T Pharro wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
This is why we need strict parking control.
What is needed is sensible parking strictly controlled. Just like we need cyclist with helmets, lights, riding sensible on the roads not the pavements and strictly controlled. As well as sensible drivers not speeding or using mobile phones when driving strictly controlled.
Even though the story is about a road overly congested with parked CARS blocking access for the emergency services, you choose to use it to have a go at cyclists?

Grow up.

Ps. Cycle helmets are not a legal requirement. And neither are cycle lights during daylight hours.
Me grow up you grow up I am criticising BAD cyclists. I also criticised bad car driving as well and bad parking. Stop nit picking sensible cyclist should wear helmets and of course lights are only needed at night on cycles. You are just paranoid about cyclist and think your opinion is the only one that counts. That is obvious from your posts on every subject.
Were you not the one who said "when you insult you have lost the argument"? You done it before and just done it again.
I have said nothing about cyclists, you chose to bring cyclists into the conversation in a childish attempt at point scoring.
I suggest you read it again, it's a story exclusively about a street so clogged with parked CARS that the emergency services could not get to their call-out.
By your own comments. You insulted (as usual) so have lost the argument.
What was it you called someone on the spy cars article? "A moronic dribbler". Clearly list that argument as well.
No, I said someone was 'in danger of being a…'I didn't say they were a… There's a big difference. I have insulted no-one, not in that topic and not in this one.
If you are objecting to my use of the word 'childish', that is not an insult, it is a description of your behaviour here, when you used a story about a street so congested with parked CARS to have a go at cyclists, based solely on who had contributed to the discussion.
Your behaviour was, and continues to be, childish. That is not an insult, it is an accurate description.

Report this post »

John T Pharro says...
5:51pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
This is why we need strict parking control.
What is needed is sensible parking strictly controlled. Just like we need cyclist with helmets, lights, riding sensible on the roads not the pavements and strictly controlled. As well as sensible drivers not speeding or using mobile phones when driving strictly controlled.
Even though the story is about a road overly congested with parked CARS blocking access for the emergency services, you choose to use it to have a go at cyclists?

Grow up.

Ps. Cycle helmets are not a legal requirement. And neither are cycle lights during daylight hours.
Me grow up you grow up I am criticising BAD cyclists. I also criticised bad car driving as well and bad parking. Stop nit picking sensible cyclist should wear helmets and of course lights are only needed at night on cycles. You are just paranoid about cyclist and think your opinion is the only one that counts. That is obvious from your posts on every subject.
Were you not the one who said "when you insult you have lost the argument"? You done it before and just done it again.
I have said nothing about cyclists, you chose to bring cyclists into the conversation in a childish attempt at point scoring.
I suggest you read it again, it's a story exclusively about a street so clogged with parked CARS that the emergency services could not get to their call-out.
By your own comments. You insulted (as usual) so have lost the argument.
What was it you called someone on the spy cars article? "A moronic dribbler". Clearly list that argument as well.
No, I said someone was 'in danger of being a…'I didn't say they were a… There's a big difference. I have insulted no-one, not in that topic and not in this one.
If you are objecting to my use of the word 'childish', that is not an insult, it is a description of your behaviour here, when you used a story about a street so congested with parked CARS to have a go at cyclists, based solely on who had contributed to the discussion.
Your behaviour was, and continues to be, childish. That is not an insult, it is an accurate description.
I think most people know what you are about so will form their own opinion.

Report this post »

Shoebury_Cyclist says...
6:04pm Mon 25 Feb 13

John T Pharro wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
This is why we need strict parking control.
What is needed is sensible parking strictly controlled. Just like we need cyclist with helmets, lights, riding sensible on the roads not the pavements and strictly controlled. As well as sensible drivers not speeding or using mobile phones when driving strictly controlled.
Even though the story is about a road overly congested with parked CARS blocking access for the emergency services, you choose to use it to have a go at cyclists?

Grow up.

Ps. Cycle helmets are not a legal requirement. And neither are cycle lights during daylight hours.
Me grow up you grow up I am criticising BAD cyclists. I also criticised bad car driving as well and bad parking. Stop nit picking sensible cyclist should wear helmets and of course lights are only needed at night on cycles. You are just paranoid about cyclist and think your opinion is the only one that counts. That is obvious from your posts on every subject.
Were you not the one who said "when you insult you have lost the argument"? You done it before and just done it again.
I have said nothing about cyclists, you chose to bring cyclists into the conversation in a childish attempt at point scoring.
I suggest you read it again, it's a story exclusively about a street so clogged with parked CARS that the emergency services could not get to their call-out.
By your own comments. You insulted (as usual) so have lost the argument.
What was it you called someone on the spy cars article? "A moronic dribbler". Clearly list that argument as well.
No, I said someone was 'in danger of being a…'I didn't say they were a… There's a big difference. I have insulted no-one, not in that topic and not in this one.
If you are objecting to my use of the word 'childish', that is not an insult, it is a description of your behaviour here, when you used a story about a street so congested with parked CARS to have a go at cyclists, based solely on who had contributed to the discussion.
Your behaviour was, and continues to be, childish. That is not an insult, it is an accurate description.
I think most people know what you are about so will form their own opinion.
You're right. They'll read these comments, see everyone talking about the problem of too many cars clogging the street, and discussing possible solutions. Then they'll see you appear and start having a go at cyclists for no reason other than someone's username.


I do indeed think they'll form their own opinions.

Report this post »

reptile says...
6:19pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
This is why we need strict parking control.
What is needed is sensible parking strictly controlled. Just like we need cyclist with helmets, lights, riding sensible on the roads not the pavements and strictly controlled. As well as sensible drivers not speeding or using mobile phones when driving strictly controlled.
Even though the story is about a road overly congested with parked CARS blocking access for the emergency services, you choose to use it to have a go at cyclists?

Grow up.

Ps. Cycle helmets are not a legal requirement. And neither are cycle lights during daylight hours.
Me grow up you grow up I am criticising BAD cyclists. I also criticised bad car driving as well and bad parking. Stop nit picking sensible cyclist should wear helmets and of course lights are only needed at night on cycles. You are just paranoid about cyclist and think your opinion is the only one that counts. That is obvious from your posts on every subject.
Were you not the one who said "when you insult you have lost the argument"? You done it before and just done it again.
I have said nothing about cyclists, you chose to bring cyclists into the conversation in a childish attempt at point scoring.
I suggest you read it again, it's a story exclusively about a street so clogged with parked CARS that the emergency services could not get to their call-out.
By your own comments. You insulted (as usual) so have lost the argument.
What was it you called someone on the spy cars article? "A moronic dribbler". Clearly list that argument as well.
No, I said someone was 'in danger of being a…'I didn't say they were a… There's a big difference. I have insulted no-one, not in that topic and not in this one.
If you are objecting to my use of the word 'childish', that is not an insult, it is a description of your behaviour here, when you used a story about a street so congested with parked CARS to have a go at cyclists, based solely on who had contributed to the discussion.
Your behaviour was, and continues to be, childish. That is not an insult, it is an accurate description.
I think most people know what you are about so will form their own opinion.
You're right. They'll read these comments, see everyone talking about the problem of too many cars clogging the street, and discussing possible solutions. Then they'll see you appear and start having a go at cyclists for no reason other than someone's username.


I do indeed think they'll form their own opinions.
Why not go for a bike ride and calm down.

Report this post »

Carnabackable says...
6:44pm Mon 25 Feb 13

GROW UP

Report this post »

Eric the Red says...
6:45pm Mon 25 Feb 13

reptile wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
This is why we need strict parking control.
What is needed is sensible parking strictly controlled. Just like we need cyclist with helmets, lights, riding sensible on the roads not the pavements and strictly controlled. As well as sensible drivers not speeding or using mobile phones when driving strictly controlled.
Even though the story is about a road overly congested with parked CARS blocking access for the emergency services, you choose to use it to have a go at cyclists?

Grow up.

Ps. Cycle helmets are not a legal requirement. And neither are cycle lights during daylight hours.
Me grow up you grow up I am criticising BAD cyclists. I also criticised bad car driving as well and bad parking. Stop nit picking sensible cyclist should wear helmets and of course lights are only needed at night on cycles. You are just paranoid about cyclist and think your opinion is the only one that counts. That is obvious from your posts on every subject.
Were you not the one who said "when you insult you have lost the argument"? You done it before and just done it again.
I have said nothing about cyclists, you chose to bring cyclists into the conversation in a childish attempt at point scoring.
I suggest you read it again, it's a story exclusively about a street so clogged with parked CARS that the emergency services could not get to their call-out.
By your own comments. You insulted (as usual) so have lost the argument.
What was it you called someone on the spy cars article? "A moronic dribbler". Clearly list that argument as well.
No, I said someone was 'in danger of being a…'I didn't say they were a… There's a big difference. I have insulted no-one, not in that topic and not in this one.
If you are objecting to my use of the word 'childish', that is not an insult, it is a description of your behaviour here, when you used a story about a street so congested with parked CARS to have a go at cyclists, based solely on who had contributed to the discussion.
Your behaviour was, and continues to be, childish. That is not an insult, it is an accurate description.
I think most people know what you are about so will form their own opinion.
You're right. They'll read these comments, see everyone talking about the problem of too many cars clogging the street, and discussing possible solutions. Then they'll see you appear and start having a go at cyclists for no reason other than someone's username.


I do indeed think they'll form their own opinions.
Why not go for a bike ride and calm down.
Why don't you two meet in a car park for a fight? Then WE can discuss the problem in hand.

Report this post »

Soouthchurch59 says...
7:03pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Eric the Red wrote:
reptile wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
This is why we need strict parking control.
What is needed is sensible parking strictly controlled. Just like we need cyclist with helmets, lights, riding sensible on the roads not the pavements and strictly controlled. As well as sensible drivers not speeding or using mobile phones when driving strictly controlled.
Even though the story is about a road overly congested with parked CARS blocking access for the emergency services, you choose to use it to have a go at cyclists?

Grow up.

Ps. Cycle helmets are not a legal requirement. And neither are cycle lights during daylight hours.
Me grow up you grow up I am criticising BAD cyclists. I also criticised bad car driving as well and bad parking. Stop nit picking sensible cyclist should wear helmets and of course lights are only needed at night on cycles. You are just paranoid about cyclist and think your opinion is the only one that counts. That is obvious from your posts on every subject.
Were you not the one who said "when you insult you have lost the argument"? You done it before and just done it again.
I have said nothing about cyclists, you chose to bring cyclists into the conversation in a childish attempt at point scoring.
I suggest you read it again, it's a story exclusively about a street so clogged with parked CARS that the emergency services could not get to their call-out.
By your own comments. You insulted (as usual) so have lost the argument.
What was it you called someone on the spy cars article? "A moronic dribbler". Clearly list that argument as well.
No, I said someone was 'in danger of being a…'I didn't say they were a… There's a big difference. I have insulted no-one, not in that topic and not in this one.
If you are objecting to my use of the word 'childish', that is not an insult, it is a description of your behaviour here, when you used a story about a street so congested with parked CARS to have a go at cyclists, based solely on who had contributed to the discussion.
Your behaviour was, and continues to be, childish. That is not an insult, it is an accurate description.
I think most people know what you are about so will form their own opinion.
You're right. They'll read these comments, see everyone talking about the problem of too many cars clogging the street, and discussing possible solutions. Then they'll see you appear and start having a go at cyclists for no reason other than someone's username.


I do indeed think they'll form their own opinions.
Why not go for a bike ride and calm down.
Why don't you two meet in a car park for a fight? Then WE can discuss the problem in hand.
Verbal pugilism is less painful!

Report this post »

Sean4u says...
7:06pm Mon 25 Feb 13

The solution is to ban cars. I think Shoebury_Cyclist is often accused of wanting that, but it's me that keeps writing it. Our living density in heavily populated areas is simply incompatible with keeping vehicles capable of international travel outside our front doors.

Any street that's less than an A-road that's built up on both sides should have a 100kg max unladen weight limit on it except for emergency vehicles and by one-off permits for construction equipment and the like.

Nobody needs more than 100kg of vehicle for local commuting / shopping / visiting / light industry and the current argument against such vehicles - "they would be crushed by heavier vehicles" - would be defused by dedicating minor roads to lightweight traffic.

Report this post »

Cockle says...
7:06pm Mon 25 Feb 13

whateverhappened wrote:
All cars down this road were parked legally, this as stated before is a problem of the councils making by allowing the over development of the large edwardian houses.
Were they, though?

I was always under the impression that it was illegal to park causing an obstruction regardless of any formal parking restrictions being in force. Surely if you have parked in such a way that a fire engine can't pass down the street then you must be causing an obstruction.

Out of interest, if a fire appliance can't get down this street then how does the dustcart collect the rubbish?

Report this post »

Soouthchurch59 says...
7:19pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Cockle wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
All cars down this road were parked legally, this as stated before is a problem of the councils making by allowing the over development of the large edwardian houses.
Were they, though?

I was always under the impression that it was illegal to park causing an obstruction regardless of any formal parking restrictions being in force. Surely if you have parked in such a way that a fire engine can't pass down the street then you must be causing an obstruction.

Out of interest, if a fire appliance can't get down this street then how does the dustcart collect the rubbish?
They are probably a little more circumspect about where they park their cars on bin day. Those lorries leave a dent!

Report this post »

whataday says...
7:20pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Cockle wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
All cars down this road were parked legally, this as stated before is a problem of the councils making by allowing the over development of the large edwardian houses.
Were they, though?

I was always under the impression that it was illegal to park causing an obstruction regardless of any formal parking restrictions being in force. Surely if you have parked in such a way that a fire engine can't pass down the street then you must be causing an obstruction.

Out of interest, if a fire appliance can't get down this street then how does the dustcart collect the rubbish?
Good point

Report this post »

Alice in Her Own Land :P says...
7:30pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Do traffic wardens - or whatever they are called now - never venture down Holland Road? Surely a few tickets down there would serve as a warning! They plague everywhere else, why not there?

Report this post »

Shoebury_Cyclist says...
7:45pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Alice in Her Own Land :P wrote:
Do traffic wardens - or whatever they are called now - never venture down Holland Road? Surely a few tickets down there would serve as a warning! They plague everywhere else, why not there?
From the article it would appear the plague isn't parking enforcement officers, the plague is too many parked cars clogging the street.

Report this post »

abd123 says...
8:24pm Mon 25 Feb 13

The residents were polled and did not want parking restrictions because fires are rare but finding somewhere to put their cars is every day. Dustcarts travel that road every week. Its up to residents.

Report this post »

Devils Advocate says...
12:49am Tue 26 Feb 13

Spookily, I drove along Takely end and in to Woodlands school in Basildon. The roads there suffer exactly the same problem. One side of the street has lay-bye's full up with cars, the other has cars parked along the road, This effectively reduces the whole road to a single lane. If a car comes along in one direction, the road is then effectively blocked by any car meeting that one from the other way. I really do not see a solution to this problem, but perhaps if the councillors left of the pies for a bit and did what they are supposed to do, they could come up with a solution. Wait a minute though, that would involve millions being spent on consultation to find a solution, which of course would then not work. Why did someone decide to make us a fourth world country?

Report this post »

David_Cameron says...
8:54am Tue 26 Feb 13

Problems like this will be a thing of the past once the Fire Service is privatised.

Report this post »

allan348 says...
8:31pm Tue 26 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist

Just kick off your high heels and get on yer Bike!!!

Report this post »

Julian Ware-Lane says...
9:10pm Tue 26 Feb 13

Be careful what you wish for! The tender had some problems because cars were parked on both sides. There is no easy way of telling who owns these cars, many will doubtless belong to residents. I cannot imagine that many in Holland Road would want parking on just one side of the road, which is the one way to ensure that large vehicles such as fire tenders have unhindered access. This would halve the available parking spaces, causing even more stress for those with cars in the road.

Report this post »

Shoebury_Cyclist says...
8:20am Wed 27 Feb 13

Julian Ware-Lane wrote:
Be careful what you wish for! The tender had some problems because cars were parked on both sides. There is no easy way of telling who owns these cars, many will doubtless belong to residents. I cannot imagine that many in Holland Road would want parking on just one side of the road, which is the one way to ensure that large vehicles such as fire tenders have unhindered access. This would halve the available parking spaces, causing even more stress for those with cars in the road.
I think being trapped in their burning home and fire trucks not being able to reach them would be more stressful to residents than not being able to obstruct the road with parked cars.

Report this post »

Hathi67 says...
1:57pm Wed 27 Feb 13

All that matters is that it was a false alarm and thank god not a real fire.

Cars can be replaced, lives cannot!

Report this post »

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