Boltar (Boltar ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

If to do so would cause an obstruction, yes. Absolutely. You think
that's a bad thing?

No , but in that case they should be allowed to park in their gardens
if they want, dropped kerb or not.

Why?

Because its their bloody property!

No, it's the way they use their property which is impacting upon others.

You going to start dictating what plants they can plant in their
gardens next

cough Tree Preservation Orders?

or perhaps what type of furniture they're allowed to buy??

And that would impact upon others how?

its none of the councils business so long as they don't cause a
public nuisance or break planning laws.

Which they are.

No they're not.

So how come the house across the road from me was refused planning
permission for a second vehicular access to the road? How come there's a
development going on at the moment just down from me which has had
vehicular access restrictions placed upon the site?

Hiho. Don't like it, don't live in a city. That simple. Or do you
think

Some village streets are even narrower.

Indeed they are. But without the volume of traffic and the residential
density. Oh, and without the "I live here, I park here" attitude.

What exactly is wrong with that attitude? Why shouldn't people have a
reasonable expectation of being able to park near where they live?

Because it just ain't practicable, unless you're the most selfish "I'm
all right, Jack, sod the rest of you" individual.

If your "reasonable expectation" is followed, parking restrictions would
evaporate overnight. Just a free-for-all. No regard to obstruction or
traffic flow. No red routes. No restriction on unfettered commuter
parking. It would be chaos.

All that's being argued about, in practice, is the extent of restrictions
necessary.

Oh, and you may like to bear in mind that every vehicular access from the
road to a driveway is a stretch of road lost - 24x7, whether the off-road
parking is in use or not - to on-road parking.