Parking problems to finally be addressed

Echo: Ralph Morgan with the lines of cars causing trouble Ralph Morgan with the lines of cars causing trouble

A NIGHTMARE road could finally be sorted following complaints about double parking.

Cars have been clogging up both sides of Endeavour Drive in Basildon for months since the firm First Data moved in from its old base in Christopher Martin Road.

With no yellow lines on the street, cars have been parking for up to a quarter of a mile along the road causing problems for other vehicles trying to get along it.

Ralph Morgan, spokesman for the Basildon Hackney Carriage Association, said the road was a hazard to drivers.

He said: “It is really positive that the problem is finally being dealt with. Let’s hope we don’t have any other problems like this.”

First Data’s car park in Endeavour Drive has enough room for 500 cars, but it is also running a shuttle bus service from a multi-storey car park in Paycocke Road in a bid to allieviate the parking problem.

An Essex County Council spokesman said: “Following the advertising of these road restrictions and the statutory consultation, the double yellow lines will be put in place this month.”

Comments (10)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:26pm Fri 8 Feb 13

Nebs says...

Yellow lines on one side, pay and display on the other.
Yellow lines on one side, pay and display on the other. Nebs
  • Score: 3

7:35pm Fri 8 Feb 13

Thecountrysgonetopot! says...

About time too! its awful, especially at 4pm and 5pm when the staff leave, it becomes gridlocked and sometimes vehicles will drive down both ends with both refusing to move as both think they were there 1st which leaves everyone stuck at the First Data end. There have been a couple of accidents outside the building as when leaving you cant see out onto the main road and some drivers tear down there so as you edge out you end up colliding. And what annoys me is that this should have been done in october but a few people objected.....because they dont want to park in the multistorey if they are late! Well tough, get there early or get the bus!
About time too! its awful, especially at 4pm and 5pm when the staff leave, it becomes gridlocked and sometimes vehicles will drive down both ends with both refusing to move as both think they were there 1st which leaves everyone stuck at the First Data end. There have been a couple of accidents outside the building as when leaving you cant see out onto the main road and some drivers tear down there so as you edge out you end up colliding. And what annoys me is that this should have been done in october but a few people objected.....because they dont want to park in the multistorey if they are late! Well tough, get there early or get the bus! Thecountrysgonetopot!
  • Score: 1

7:39pm Fri 8 Feb 13

Thecountrysgonetopot! says...

And also Echo id like to point out that First Data moved in over 3 years ago....this problem only started when they crammed more departments into the building last year!
And also Echo id like to point out that First Data moved in over 3 years ago....this problem only started when they crammed more departments into the building last year! Thecountrysgonetopot!
  • Score: 3

11:41pm Fri 8 Feb 13

Russ13 says...

I work at First Data and am glad they're finally putting the restrictions in, however let's not forget that it's not only First Data staff that park on the road, staff from other local businesses use the road because the other companies have very little or no on-site parking.

It also seems to be used as a lorry park at times too .
I work at First Data and am glad they're finally putting the restrictions in, however let's not forget that it's not only First Data staff that park on the road, staff from other local businesses use the road because the other companies have very little or no on-site parking. It also seems to be used as a lorry park at times too . Russ13
  • Score: 4

1:33pm Mon 11 Feb 13

perini says...

This is a direct result of Prescott's meddling in things he knew nothing about - build a building with a capacity for 800 people but only allow car parking for 500. He seemed to think that people would use public transport or carshare!
This is a direct result of Prescott's meddling in things he knew nothing about - build a building with a capacity for 800 people but only allow car parking for 500. He seemed to think that people would use public transport or carshare! perini
  • Score: 6

8:02pm Mon 11 Feb 13

-R-G-B- says...

It's humourous, and somewhat ironic, that they block access to the public footpath just prior to taking away more parking for the poor blighters. How is this likely to increase "Walking" as the method of transport, thus promoting a healthy alternative mode of transport? Notwithstanding the probability of people continuing to use this 'closed' route and jumping over the fence regardless, consequently injuring themselves which, by the way, opens the flood gates to litigation against the landowner - irrespective of the 'trespassing' element. Someone hasn't done their homework here. Anyway, I digress...

Eureka! Now this may be asking a lot of a company with oh so many Americanisms, but why on Earth hasn't someone in charge suggested reserved parking for those willing to participate in a car sharing scheme? Not only does one get Kudos for solving a big problem, but also be known as a 'Green Employer'. Typical of call centre staff attitudes and resistance to change, FD may get the curtain twitcher effect of a few moans and groans but let's face it, conform they will - saving money in the process by taking it in turns.

Perhaps this has already been looked into, but how about building a temporary (dismantable) Multi-Storey/Two-tie
r parking system on First Data's premises? Surely for the safety of those on the road outside this could be sold to the landlord as a benefit? Or are they as daft as the adjacent landowners?

Answers on a postcard.

I'm here all week!
It's humourous, and somewhat ironic, that they block access to the public footpath just prior to taking away more parking for the poor blighters. How is this likely to increase "Walking" as the method of transport, thus promoting a healthy alternative mode of transport? Notwithstanding the probability of people continuing to use this 'closed' route and jumping over the fence regardless, consequently injuring themselves which, by the way, opens the flood gates to litigation against the landowner - irrespective of the 'trespassing' element. Someone hasn't done their homework here. Anyway, I digress... Eureka! Now this may be asking a lot of a company with oh so many Americanisms, but why on Earth hasn't someone in charge suggested reserved parking for those willing to participate in a car sharing scheme? Not only does one get Kudos for solving a big problem, but also be known as a 'Green Employer'. Typical of call centre staff attitudes and resistance to change, FD may get the curtain twitcher effect of a few moans and groans but let's face it, conform they will - saving money in the process by taking it in turns. Perhaps this has already been looked into, but how about building a temporary (dismantable) Multi-Storey/Two-tie r parking system on First Data's premises? Surely for the safety of those on the road outside this could be sold to the landlord as a benefit? Or are they as daft as the adjacent landowners? Answers on a postcard. I'm here all week! -R-G-B-
  • Score: 1

8:10pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Russ13 says...

-R-G-B....... Agree with what you say but there was never a public footpath..... the land owner allowed access through their land but it was never a public right of way ;-)
-R-G-B....... Agree with what you say but there was never a public footpath..... the land owner allowed access through their land but it was never a public right of way ;-) Russ13
  • Score: 0

8:36pm Mon 11 Feb 13

-R-G-B- says...

Ah, just bad timing then! The private landowners could've just built a sturdy fence to restrict cycles, motorcycles etc and just allow by foot. Either that or putting up a taller, less of a climbing frame structure. All they have done now is make it easier for people to fall from the fence or maybe take out an eye if they go round the bush. Depending on where that bush grows from both the landowner and Council could be joint/severally liable.

Irrespective of this, it's a hassle for the employees to park. "Get there early" is just bringing a traffic jam forward by half-hour. Arguably this also isn't very safe given that there isn't much room to manoeuvre down the meandering road, especially when people will have to turn back round to find somewhere else more suitable to park.

So Cycling, yes - for those agile and able-bodied. Bus, yes - with hassle. Car, possibly - with hassle. Walk... No.

Would I want to work there? Absolutely not. I have an allocated parking space where I am. Oh, and I car-share.
Ah, just bad timing then! The private landowners could've just built a sturdy fence to restrict cycles, motorcycles etc and just allow by foot. Either that or putting up a taller, less of a climbing frame structure. All they have done now is make it easier for people to fall from the fence or maybe take out an eye if they go round the bush. Depending on where that bush grows from both the landowner and Council could be joint/severally liable. Irrespective of this, it's a hassle for the employees to park. "Get there early" is just bringing a traffic jam forward by half-hour. Arguably this also isn't very safe given that there isn't much room to manoeuvre down the meandering road, especially when people will have to turn back round to find somewhere else more suitable to park. So Cycling, yes - for those agile and able-bodied. Bus, yes - with hassle. Car, possibly - with hassle. Walk... No. Would I want to work there? Absolutely not. I have an allocated parking space where I am. Oh, and I car-share. -R-G-B-
  • Score: 0

9:03pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Russ13 says...

From what I understand, the "path" that went across the field was getting wider and wider where people kept avoiding the mud during the winter, there was also the risk that someone could have slipped on the mud and hurt themselves and tried to sue the landowner.

Now they've put the fences and signs up, if you hurt yourself on their land it's tough luck (or at least it should be).

The problem is that the building is pretty much at the back end of nowhere, bang smack in the middle of 2 mainline stations, not on a "standard" bus route and for most people a car is the only option.

I reckon it's take me around 2 hours each way to use public transport, luckily I can pretty much choose when I start work (within reason) but I can see it getting silly in the car park from 8am soon.

With the traveller site on Gardiners Lane South getting the go ahead, the multi-storey car park could become "rich pickings" if security isn't stepped up.
From what I understand, the "path" that went across the field was getting wider and wider where people kept avoiding the mud during the winter, there was also the risk that someone could have slipped on the mud and hurt themselves and tried to sue the landowner. Now they've put the fences and signs up, if you hurt yourself on their land it's tough luck (or at least it should be). The problem is that the building is pretty much at the back end of nowhere, bang smack in the middle of 2 mainline stations, not on a "standard" bus route and for most people a car is the only option. I reckon it's take me around 2 hours each way to use public transport, luckily I can pretty much choose when I start work (within reason) but I can see it getting silly in the car park from 8am soon. With the traveller site on Gardiners Lane South getting the go ahead, the multi-storey car park could become "rich pickings" if security isn't stepped up. Russ13
  • Score: 0

2:01am Tue 12 Feb 13

-R-G-B- says...

Yes, I agree. It should be tough luck but unfortunately "the law is an ****", as the saying goes. Whether someone should or shouldn't be there, injuries sustained will bring damages where legal liability attaches. Statutory amendments and changes in the law imposes responsibilities onto the land owner for certain types of trespass. One example, Children. If a child jumps over the fence to get to BasVegas amusements *ahem*, is it reasonable to expect them to know the consequences of trespassing or reasonable to expect them to read/understand or even care about the dangers? This is why the land owner will have public liability insurance to cover these situations. Well, if they have any sense anyway. "Whatever happened to good old common sense?" I hear you say. Indeed, but unfortunately that went out the window when people learnt of security blankets, loopholes in the lenient law and when moral responsibilities declined (and continues to do so, somewhat rapidly).

Also consider this: if for example a company provides a bus service and the bus breaks down and someone decided to walk to/from work via the shortcut, injuring themselves along the way, then that company may have some legal liability attaching as their duty of care. Heightened by the fact that by not providing enough car parking spaces in the first place, you are in effect insisting that the employee use the laid-on transport and they are therefore relying on it. It's unreasonable to assume they will not take the short-cut. Q) What is the usual method of transport for that employee? How far away does the employee live from the usual place of work? What safe alternatives did the employee have? What were the weather conditions? Could the employee have worked from home that day? What were the consequences of that person being late? Were the dangers of using any shortcuts highlighted and was the employee aware of them? etc.

Whilst an employer would be unreasonable to insist that the short cut is not taken, then asking the employee to sign a "I will not cross this shortcut" (effectively exonerating responsibility), it would be wise to point out the legalities and dangers in doing so. An employer could send a company-wide communication highlighting this and get a "Read and Understood" template signed. Education and awareness is a far greater defence than a "well I told them not to, look, they've signed to say I told them and that I'd not be held responsible, not to so it's not my fault...". That's weak. Our survey says... 'X' *Family Fortunes noise*

You're right RE bus route. I've never understood why there are no routes to Festival. One can only presume what with taxi rank etc. there be some sort of deal with the Council. Makes you wonder why they have that newish bus lane going into Ghyllgrove / Honeypot lane. Oh, that's right, the taxis can use that lane too!

Agree on the last part too. Especially after the programme on TV tonight. Shocking.
Yes, I agree. It should be tough luck but unfortunately "the law is an ****", as the saying goes. Whether someone should or shouldn't be there, injuries sustained will bring damages where legal liability attaches. Statutory amendments and changes in the law imposes responsibilities onto the land owner for certain types of trespass. One example, Children. If a child jumps over the fence to get to BasVegas amusements *ahem*, is it reasonable to expect them to know the consequences of trespassing or reasonable to expect them to read/understand or even care about the dangers? This is why the land owner will have public liability insurance to cover these situations. Well, if they have any sense anyway. "Whatever happened to good old common sense?" I hear you say. Indeed, but unfortunately that went out the window when people learnt of security blankets, loopholes in the lenient law and when moral responsibilities declined (and continues to do so, somewhat rapidly). Also consider this: if for example a company provides a bus service and the bus breaks down and someone decided to walk to/from work via the shortcut, injuring themselves along the way, then that company may have some legal liability attaching as their duty of care. Heightened by the fact that by not providing enough car parking spaces in the first place, you are in effect insisting that the employee use the laid-on transport and they are therefore relying on it. It's unreasonable to assume they will not take the short-cut. Q) What is the usual method of transport for that employee? How far away does the employee live from the usual place of work? What safe alternatives did the employee have? What were the weather conditions? Could the employee have worked from home that day? What were the consequences of that person being late? Were the dangers of using any shortcuts highlighted and was the employee aware of them? etc. Whilst an employer would be unreasonable to insist that the short cut is not taken, then asking the employee to sign a "I will not cross this shortcut" (effectively exonerating responsibility), it would be wise to point out the legalities and dangers in doing so. An employer could send a company-wide communication highlighting this and get a "Read and Understood" template signed. Education and awareness is a far greater defence than a "well I told them not to, look, they've signed to say I told them and that I'd not be held responsible, not to so it's not my fault...". That's weak. Our survey says... 'X' *Family Fortunes noise* You're right RE bus route. I've never understood why there are no routes to Festival. One can only presume what with taxi rank etc. there be some sort of deal with the Council. Makes you wonder why they have that newish bus lane going into Ghyllgrove / Honeypot lane. Oh, that's right, the taxis can use that lane too! Agree on the last part too. Especially after the programme on TV tonight. Shocking. -R-G-B-
  • 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