Manchester tops league table for having cars parked on pavements

Let that be a warning to you. Image: Getty.

Here’s one for the Mancunian civic pride file: a poll published this week suggests that you are more likely to come across on-pavement parking in Manchester than in any other UK city.

The poll, commissioned by charity Guide Dogs, asked residents of 10 cities across England and Wales how often they came across cars parked on the pavement.

Manchester topped the list of cities surveyed, with 61 per cent of respondents said that there were often cars parked on the pavement on the street where they live. Unsurprisingly the tighter parking restrictions make cars on pavements a rarer sight in the city centre – but even there, 39 per cent said that they often or always experience the problem.

Here’s the list of ten cities in full, ranging from most to least prevalent in the pavement parking league table:

1. Manchester

2.  Liverpool

3.  Cambridge

4.  Cardiff

5.  Birmingham

6.  Sheffield

7.  Newcastle

8.  Bristol

9.  Leeds

10. Southampton

Even in sunny Southampton, though, just 37 per cent of those surveyed said that cars were regularly parked in the residential streets around them, and 27 per cent in the city centre.

The poll came on the eve of a parliamentary debate which proposes to introduce new restrictions on pavement parking.

“Badly parked cars are forcing people living with sight loss to step out into the road and putting them in danger just because people park on pavements,” said a Guide Dogs representative. Just four out of ten surveyed considered the ability of pedestrians to get past their vehicle as important when deciding to park.

For the record, pavement parking has been banned in London for 40 years – save for certain loading and other allowances.

Like this sort of thing, do you? Why not like us on Facebook, too. 

 
 
 
 

As EU funding is lost, “levelling up” needs investment, not just rhetoric

Oh, well. Image: Getty.

Regional inequality was the foundation of Boris Johnson’s election victory and has since become one of the main focuses of his government. However, the enthusiasm of ministers championing the “levelling up” agenda rings hollow when compared with their inertia in preparing a UK replacement for European structural funding. 

Local government, already bearing the brunt of severe funding cuts, relies on European funding to support projects that boost growth in struggling local economies and help people build skills and find secure work. Now that the UK has withdrawn its EU membership, councils’ concerns over how EU funds will be replaced from 2021 are becoming more pronounced.

Johnson’s government has committed to create a domestic structural funding programme, the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF), to replace the European Structural and Investment Fund (ESIF). However, other than pledging that UKSPF will “reduce inequalities between communities”, it has offered few details on how funds will be allocated. A public consultation on UKSPF promised by May’s government in 2018 has yet to materialise.

The government’s continued silence on UKSPF is generating a growing sense of unease among councils, especially after the failure of successive governments to prioritise investment in regional development. Indeed, inequalities within the UK have been allowed to grow so much that the UK’s poorest region by EU standards (West Wales & the Valleys) has a GDP of 68 per cent of the average EU GDP, while the UK’s richest region (Inner London) has a GDP of 614 per cent of the EU average – an intra-national disparity that is unique in Europe. If the UK had remained a member of the EU, its number of ‘less developed’ regions in need of most structural funding support would have increased from two to five in 2021-27: South Yorkshire, Tees Valley & Durham and Lincolnshire joining Cornwall & Isles of Scilly and West Wales & the Valley. Ministers have not given guarantees that any region, whether ‘less developed’ or otherwise, will obtain the same amount of funding under UKSPF to which they would have been entitled under ESIF.


The government is reportedly contemplating changing the Treasury’s fiscal rules so public spending favours programmes that reduce regional inequalities as well as provide value for money, but this alone will not rebalance the economy. A shared prosperity fund like UKSPF has the potential to be the master key that unlocks inclusive growth throughout the country, particularly if it involves less bureaucracy than ESIF and aligns funding more effectively with the priorities of local people. 

In NLGN’s Community Commissioning report, we recommended that this funding should be devolved to communities directly to decide local priorities for the investment. By enabling community ownership of design and administration, the UK government would create an innovative domestic structural funding scheme that promotes inclusion in its process as well as its outcomes.

NLGN’s latest report, Cultivating Local Inclusive Growth: In Practice, highlights the range of policy levers and resources that councils can use to promote inclusive growth in their area. It demonstrates that, through collaboration with communities and cross-sector partners, councils are already doing sterling work to enhance economic and social inclusion. Their efforts could be further enhanced with a fund that learns lessons from ESIF’s successes and flaws: a UKSPF that is easier to access, designed and delivered by local communities, properly funded, and specifically targeted at promoting social and economic inclusion in regions that need it most. “Getting Brexit done” was meant to free up the government’s time to focus once more on pressing domestic priorities. “Getting inclusive growth done” should be at the top of any new to-do list.

Charlotte Morgan is senior researcher at the New Local Government Network.