Houghton-le-Spring gym 'penalised' by loading bay parking rules
The parking bay is one shop along from the gym and the road either side has double yellow line restrictions.Mr Donkin said the nearest car park was about 200m (656ft) away and up an incline, which he said posed a health and safety risk when carrying heavy equipment.He said the situation was "frustrating" because he did not have a business need or budget for a van.
Mr Donkin said: "I'm penalised for literally the type of car it is, which I feel is a bit unfair."He said the rules were a failure of common sense and that he should be able to use his business-owned and insured car for loading.Mr Donkin, who has been given five penalty charge notices of £30 each, said he always tries to park his car legally but sometimes it is not an option."By default I'm parking illegally and I accept that, however I've got a need to be able to load in and out of my business."
Mr Donkin had previously asked the Labour-run local authority for an exemption.It was rejected and he was advised to use the bay outside working hours when the goods vehicle restriction does not apply.Sunderland City Council said: "As many residents and visitors will be aware, parts of the street are narrow and restrictions have always been about improving road safety, reducing congestion in the interests of all highways users and supporting the wider community."It's is not possible to provide an exemption as restrictions apply to all road users."It added there was an appeals process for anyone who believed they had been issued a penalty charge notice incorrectly.
Follow BBC North East on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
42 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Boosting productivity will be main priority of autumn budget, Reeves says
Rachel Reeves has promised to use her autumn budget to prioritise fixing Britain's dismal record on productivity as she sought to downplay mounting tax speculation with a focus on economic growth. Setting out her priorities for the budget for the first time, the chancellor said tackling the efficiency of the economy through higher investment and a fresh assault on planning rules would form the backbone of her tax and spending plans. Writing exclusively for the Guardian, she said: 'If Labour's first year in power was about fixing the foundations, then the second year is about building a stronger economy for a renewed Britain.' However, Reeves pushed back against what she called 'speculation' over tax increases being explored by the Treasury to close a yawning gap in the public finances that is estimated to reach more than £40bn. 'The months and weeks before any budget are filled with people speculating about – or claiming to know – what tax and spend decisions I will take or what the Office for Budget Responsibility [OBR] will conclude,' she said. 'This budget is no different – I get that. I will set out the decisions I take in the responsible manner.' The chancellor's comments come as the government braces for gloomy official figures that are expected to show the economy narrowly avoided flatlining in the second quarter. With Labour under mounting pressure over its management of the economy, City forecasters predict that Thursday morning's update from the Office for National Statistics will find that GDP rose by 0.1% in the three months to June. The UK outpaced its G7 peers in the first quarter with growth of 0.7%. However, experts have blamed tax increases announced by Reeves in her first budget, last October, and Donald Trump's trade war for a marked hit to activity. The chancellor, aiming to shrug off the anaemic performance, argued the government was taking steps to break a 'cycle of low growth' in which Britain had become trapped under Conservative governments. Laying out one of the central themes of her budget, which could be held in November, Reeves said the government would aim to boost the productive capacity of the economy by allocating investment for infrastructure projects and ripping up planning rules. 'If renewal is our mission and productivity is our challenge, then investment and reform are our tools,' she said. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Earlier on Wednesday, the Guardian revealed that Keir Starmer was preparing to revive plans for the Northern Powerhouse Rail project, which would improve transport connections between the main cities of northern England. Reeves has ordered Treasury officials to draw up proposals for slashing additional red tape in the UK's planning system to speed up large infrastructure projects. 'We are providing that investment and unblocking the barriers to it too,' she said. Successive chancellors have pushed to solve what economists refer to as a 'productivity puzzle' that has contributed to the UK's sluggish growth since the 2008 financial crisis. Productivity growth is considered one of the key determinants for raising living standards and wages over the long term. However, progress to drive up the measure of output per hour of work has stalled in recent years. The chancellor's renewed focus comes as the Treasury braces for a potentially devastating downgrade in productivity forecasts from the OBR, which could blow a £20bn hole in the chancellor's tax and spending plans. With the shortfall made worse by a weak growth outlook, higher debt interest payments, and a series of U-turns on welfare cuts, Reeves and the prime minister are laying the groundwork for tax rises and changes from September, before the autumn budget. The Guardian revealed on Tuesday that the Treasury was looking at ways to raise more money from inheritance tax to reduce the deficit. Labour MPs have been pushing the idea of a wealth tax, but changes to inheritance tax thresholds could be similarly controversial. Sarah Coles, the head of personal finance at Hargreaves Lansdown, said it was 'hardly surprising' that inheritance tax was 'back in the frame'. It is among a limited suite of taxes that can be changed, despite the government's commitment to not increase the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, employee national insurance or VAT. 'The system is so fiendishly complex that there are an enormous number of rules, and therefore tweaks, that the government could consider,' Coles added.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Whining about Scottish ‘austerity' is baseless, absurd and idiotic
Like Christmas and birthdays, the annual GERS festival seems to arrive sooner than you think. Has a year really passed since the last edition of the Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland figures was published? Why, yes it has. This year's numbers are remarkable, best accompanied by an indecently large dram of cask-strength liquor. For public spending in and for Scotland amounted to 52 per cent of Scottish GDP last year. That is lower than in France, Finland, Belgium and Austria but higher than in every other European country. Public spending in Sweden and Denmark, for instance, equals 48 per cent of GDP. In Norway, the figure is 46 per cent. Further afield, other countries with which the Scottish government sometimes likes to compare Scotland contrive to thrive with a much smaller public sector. Public spending in New Zealand is 42 per cent of GDP. This is the context in which to understand the claims made by Scottish government ministers that Scotland is once again enduring some form of 'austerity'. And the thing to understand about this whining is that it is baseless, absurd and idiotic. This is a country of Big Government. If government departments and other agencies struggle to meet their obligations despite this obvious largesse it is because they are inefficiently or incompetently run and because ministers lack the courage to say 'No' to demands for more and more spending. Mercifully, Scottish taxpayers are not required to pay for all of this. In 2024-25, £91.4 billion was raised in taxes in Scotland but government spending amounted to £117.6 billion. This is a notional deficit — notional because Scotland is part of the United Kingdom — of some £26.5 billion. That is equivalent to 11.7 per cent of GDP. John Swinney should pray to the ghost of the late Joel Barnett every night for it is his eponymous formula that grants Scotland its privileged place within the United Kingdom: a relatively wealthy part of the realm funded as though it were a poor one. By way of illustrating the scale of Scotland's deficit, it may be worthing noting that last year Zimbabwe ran a deficit equal to 10.4 per cent of GDP. Indeed, according to data compiled by the International Monetary Fund, the only independent countries running real deficits greater than Scotland's notional one are East Timor, Kiribati, the Maldives and Ukraine. At this point nationalists will customarily enter the chat to say that, look, GERS only tells us about Scotland's current fiscal position and of course an independent Scotland would do things differently. This is true. GERS offers a snapshot of the position from which an independent Scotland would begin life and GERS also makes it very clear that many things would have to be done very differently in an independent Scotland. To start with you would begin with something like £10 billion in tax increases and around another £10 billion in spending cuts. That would still leave Scotland running a deficit like most countries but it would be a manageable one of around 3 per cent of GDP. That, you will also recall, is the price of admission to the European Union. Every existing tax would doubtless be increased and new taxes created (on this front, if few others, Scotland's political class is endlessly resourceful). But to give an indication of the scale of tax hikes required, £10 billion is about half of total income tax receipts in Scotland last year. Swingeing tax increases of this sort would almost certainly encourage capital flight of a sort this country can ill afford. Just 5 per cent of Britain's top-rate tax-payers live in Scotland which is one reason why although Scotland has 8 per cent of the UK population it contributes just 6.8 per cent of income tax revenue. Tax increases of this sort, however, would only get the job half done. You would still need to cut £10 billion of public spending. That is roughly equivalent to 50 per cent of the NHS budget. Good luck winning an independence referendum on that manifesto. • The facts of life are demanding chiels. It is too often and too easily forgotten that in the years after the 2008 financial crisis Scotland's notional deficit was broadly the same as the UK's real one and, in some years and thanks to buoyant oil revenues, Scotland's relative fiscal position was marginally healthier than the UK's. This was unusual and atypical but it allowed Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon to sell independence as a financial opportunity, not, as it obviously is now, a giant leap into an enormous fiscal black hole. Even then, all lilies had to be gilded. As Sturgeon relates in her new memoir, oil prices were then high but Salmond 'spent a lot of time persuading the government economists to push their projections higher, raking them to the outer edges of credibility'. In other words, the Yes campaign suborned officials to present a fantastical vision of the riches an independent Scotland would enjoy. This is something worth remembering. The SNP are doubtless happy to win without lying but why take that risk when untruths may buttress the liberation cause? Economic self-interest does not always prevail and voters may cheerfully vote for their own impoverishment but, even so, this year's GERS festival is a reminder that the appeal of independence is for the time being strictly notional and hypothetical. That imaginary Scotland is a comfortable place to dwell but the nature of today's fiscal realities is such that even SNP politicians might be wary of asking the national question again. This is why, in the end, they are comfortable not asking it, for no amount of creative accountancy can make these sums add up.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
MoD refuses to say if Chagos deal counts toward defence spending
The Ministry of Defence has refused to say whether the Chagos Islands deal will count toward its Nato spending target. Labour ministers repeatedly faced questions over whether the £35bn agreement, described as a 'surrender deal' by critics, would be included as part of the newly announced goal of spending 5 per cent of GDP on defence by 2035. The Chagos deal was announced earlier this year as part of a large settlement with Mauritius, which claims sovereignty over the archipelago. Opponents said counting the Chagos payments towards the Nato total would undermine the credibility of the pledge, allowing ministers to claim they were spending more on defence without providing additional resources for the Armed Forces. 'Creative accounting' James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, accused the Government of 'smoke and mirrors', adding that counting the sum towards the target would be 'a total con'. He told The Telegraph: 'With the threats we face, the UK needs to urgently increase defence spending. But this needs to be actual money for our Armed Forces, not smoke and mirrors. 'If Labour were to include the cost of Chagos in their declared Nato spend, that wouldn't just be creative accounting but a total con on the British public, inflating apparent defence spending with a £35bn commitment that makes us weaker. 'Labour must come clean on whether this massive waste of taxpayer's money will be included in our Nato spend.' Asked whether the Chagos payments would count towards the Nato total, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) directed The Telegraph towards an answer given in the House of Lords by Baroness Chapman, a Foreign Office minister. She told peers: 'The payments to Mauritius will be split between the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the MoD. The Nato qualifying status of these costs will be considered in the usual way.'
