Add your general comments and suggestions, or start a discussion here…
Andy – It’s about how meaningful representation is, and how that is perceived/used by others. I think you’ve missed the point again, but never mind. Thanks for responding.
(a) The committee could only present those comments that came forward.
(b) The residents’ association is a representative voice – of the residents. SRRA is concerned with many local issues, and is neutral on the CPZ as it represents all residents, whether they are for or against the scheme.
The SRRA AGM is tomorrow night at 7.30 pm, upstairs at The Open House. All residents are welcome.
Thanks for the response Andy. This seems curious to me as
(a) the tone of the comments is all about how the parking restrictions will be applied, missing the obvious one which is those roads who want to be exempt. Is that not an option at all? You seemed to imply it was.
(b) I’m concerned that the residents association is seen as a representative voice – speaking to you was one of the claims our councillors made to claim they had consulted the community. I’m sure you wouldn’t want it to be seen as such. You may argue it is representative, which it is in the absence of anything else – which all adds to the sense of something being railroaded through.
Is the AGM still on tonight? I’m interested to find out more about this body which the council clearly sees as representative of my views.
Members of SRRA made various comments and suggestions on the scheme, which the chair and secretary collated. The committee presented these to council officers as “committee recommendations” where they determined that there was a consensus, or just as is otherwise; the chair also made a couple of recommendations.
As you can see, barring those suggestions with legal/technical drawbacks, the traffic officers accepted everything for inclusion in the scheme. The council are prepared to listen; consultation is the way forward. I’m pleased to see that Downs is following that route; it appears that a solution to their concerns is available.
Not guilty of any leaflets, and agree that the tone of comments doesn’t advance the arguments. I see from this site there was a public meeting about the traffic orders. When was this? I thought the orders were still open to responses- the record reads as if the orders on each road are a given. Is that the case?
It is really counterproductive for whoever is behind the Stop the Parking Lunacy to not identify themselves, or at least have an e-mail contact. There are plenty of us who are either opposed to the scheme in principle (not me) or opposed to many of the aspects of the present proposal (me). We haven’t had anything through the door, just read the stuff on lamposts. If you are out there make contact with the local schools, Church, nurseries and businesses if you want to find those with concerns.
If this post reaches the person or persons responsible for the “Stop this parking lunacy” leaflet which came through my door may I ask why you did not sign the document and use an anonymous email address?
Everybody resident in the area is entitled to their opinion but my suspicions are aroused by your reluctance to identify yourselves, perhaps you could clarify.
Andy – fair enough if you want to opt out of the discussion, but I’m still trying to understand the arguments for a CPZ and evidence for its effectiveness, they don’t seem to be iterated anywhere – other than for a minority of roads are finding it difficult to park. If you could point me to that I would be very grateful. I appreciate that you feel like the only voice in favour and that must be difficult – perhaps its becuse the voices ‘for’ (unlike youself) do keep their heads down that a number of us feel quite frustrated at the lack of debate.
You also haven’t addressed the point about only having a one hour limit (which would protect tradesmen, businesses etc.
I’m happy to go with you that if a street votes for a CPZ they should have it and have made that clear in my response to the council on the traffic orders – but if they have voted against it they shouldn’t. Also the limit should only be for one hour. In the interests of your comments about supproting democracy, will you do the same?
Sorry Hugo it wont happen THEY have already made up their minds
i didn’t vote for them in the first place and theres a long time to wait to get anyone decent in. None the less councillors are meant to listen to people who contact them with problems not totally ignore them which is what Littman,etc are doing
here here Hugo
How very interesting! The term “cost neutral” includes subsidising the buses. It’s slightly old data (2009/10) – I wonder what the current figures are.
If a person gives a matter deep consideration, and then decides not to vote, I wouldn’t call that ignoring the issue – would you?
I haven’t heard anyone claim that “EVERYONE” wants the scheme: the result was 58% “yes” and 42% “no”, which speaks for itself.
I don’t know much about the ‘process’, but perhaps the people you’ve spoken to can’t actually do anything; they’re just pointing you in the direction of someone who can.
There’s a response form on the council web site: it’s possible you could get your street excluded from the scheme. If you were successful in that, you may well find yourself campaigning to be re-included before too long. Beware, it’s a slow process.
As the only regular on this “discussion” thread who thinks the scheme is a good idea, I’m in danger of becoming the go-to guy for the disaffected. I will keep reading, but I’m only going to contribute in future when something distinctly new is posted. There’s a danger of going around in circles saying the same thing in different ways.
As Gren posted a couple of weeks back:
“All those arguments and others were considered and discussed before the consultation and people decided on their votes bearing them in mind. It’s clear that we’re not going to agree on the scheme so we’ll just have to agree to differ.
All the best.”.
Andy I think you’ve rather missed my point- I’m not really comparing something like cracking to the inconvenience of a cpz- my point was the minority of roads affecting the geographic majority.
I’m still not sure how a one hour limit in the middle of the day wouldn’t address the very valid points you raise about people travelling from out of town or leaving cars for an extended period of time- they would still fall foul of the parking restrictions. And the users of schools, businesses etc. that you mention wouldn’t be affected.
I think consensus is more important here. This is why I’m disappointed by our councillors because I feel as elected community representatives they should be tying to build it rather than opt out. So perhaps we can agree that those streets who have voted for the cpz have it, and those that haven’t don’t? If so can you register your opinion with the council? You’ll still get your cpz on the affected streets.
I’d say the views of the South East and London do impact on the environment of the rest of the country! Our MPs vote on issues like fracking in Lancashire.
Of course, I don’t know all the reasons for the parking problems here either. I was just comparing Preston Park station area (which I think is mainly just about the station) with ours which, as well as a railway station, has schools, nurseries etc. Also, being nearer to town, I think we attract more parking from outside our area than Preston Park station.
If you don’t like the council(lors) I suppose the only thing to do is vote for someone else next time – or stand yourself!
Andy: “The scheme was designed by people with expertise and experience of doing just that” – Sorry, it’s not that I’m by nature mistrusting, but I’d need to see a bit mroe evidence. CPZ is the sole response of the council to parking problems.
“if a smaller area had been chosen (excluding you) then you would have been adversely affected by vehicle displacement” – Happy to take the risk for the sake of my visitors and businesses in the area. If we were affected then we can petition like other areas.
With regard to costs, The CPZs a profit which goes into the council transport budget (Cllr Leo Littman confirmed this in a rare foray off the fence).
“there is a lot more good than bad in this scheme” Is there? Sorry if it sounds sarky, it isn’t meant to be, I am genuinely interested to know what the benefits are other than some people in a few roads will be able to park outside their houses who couldn’t previously, and the transport budget for Brighton will be marginally increased. As opposed to the inconvenience, financial and otherwise, for the majority.
If they are not motivated to vote yes or no – they are ignoring it are they not? Or perhaps they didn’t receive the questionnaire in the 1st place – it does seem strange that according to the individuals who want this scheme EVERYONE wanted it , but only 58% indicated they were in agreement to the scheme of a 40 % turnout. Hardly a staggering result.
The Councillors have been extremely ineffectual in this situation and personally I have found them to be not interested at all in anything I have written to them about. I have suggested other schemes and all they do is refer to the ‘process’ – no discussion. As for meetings – I was not aware of any meetings that were taking place regarding this scheme therefore others were probably ‘missed’ as well. I was shocked to hear it had been discussed and voted on.
Has anyone considered 2-4 hrly bays around the London Road station area? Has anyone considered that most people complain about parking in the evening when the scheme is not in operation? Has anyone considered the effects on schools nurseries small shops, business and garages? Apparently the ‘soft parking’ scheme is not going to be implemented in the Brighton area anymore – Why? And Please don’t assume you will be able to park outside your house when this scheme comes in, as you are only entitled to park in the scheme area if you have a permit!
The scheme was designed by people with expertise and experience of doing just that. I don’t know exactly where you live, but presumably it was judged that if a smaller area had been chosen (excluding you) then you would have been adversely affected by vehicle displacement. London Road station is not the only cause of parking problems in the area.
The council have to buy and install the equipment, and then pay traffic wardens. I would be interested to see how those costs stack up against the income from fines in a similar CPZ. If you find anything like that please share.
Where I am, cars are regularly left for a week or more; I’ve known one remain unmoved for six months. These “dumped” vehicles reduce the parking available; I think people are parking illegally because of that pressure on space.
As you rightly observe the vote has been held, and a majority were in favour. Nothing in life is perfect, but I believe there is a lot more good than bad in this scheme.
Isn’t it a bit unfair on your fellow residents to assume that they ignored what was sent to them? It’s just as likely that they studied it closely. In the end some people weren’t sufficiently motivated to vote either “yes” or “no”: they abstained.
I do the views of neighbouring roads are important, yes. I’d suggest that part of the problems with springfield and rugby road are caused by displacement from the neighbouring CPZ – this solution will merely push the problem north. Its a skewed analysis, with the road with the highest denisty of population having more say than the majority of roads. To take your analogy of a national referendum, would you advocate that the views of the south east and london should impact on the envronment of the rest of the country?
….which leads onto your response to my third point. No I don’t know the diverse reasons – does anyone? If not, then how do we know that the knee jerk reaction of a CPZ will solve them. It maybe that given the numbers of cars owned (average 1.3 per household), and/or each flat owning a car that the problem is just too many cars owned by people in that part of the area – in which case how will a cPZ stop it?
The two things that really gall me is the way the consultation has been done and analysed, and the Pontius Pilate approach of our local councillors.
Totally agree with you – there are so many things wrong with this scheme. I just wish that everyone had filled in the questionairre that was sent out to everyone in the area. The scheme is being actioned simply because 60% of questionaires were ignored, therefore the vote was based on the 40% they got! Frustrating but unfortuneatly the 58% of the 40% of replies they got were in favour of the scheme – so thats the result they are running with. If people don’t speak up then nothing can be done.
I have to add my voice to those who object to the way the scheme is being rolled out. I currently have no problems parking and am now looking forward to paying £115 + visitor permits for no benefit. Perhaps someone can point me to the study that shows why the area chosen is the right size? Why not twice the size? Why not half the size? If it’s just because it looks good on the map, then that’s pretty unsatisfactory for us who live 10 minutes walk away from London Road station who are pretty unlikely to be directly affected by a change in the immediate vicinity of the station. Surely stopping at Rugby or possibly Grantham road would be sufficient?
I the scheme is cost neutral? Presumably not, given that it can’t possibly cost £115/year to exchange one or two letters and get a fresh permit every year. If it is money making, why?
I know the vote has gone through, I know it’s too late, but as my Councillor has effectively passed the buck to you guys, I thought I’d express my frustration.
I’d agree with Hugo that a simple 1 hour exclusion time immediately around London Road station would sort out the station problem if people are parking and commuting. The other parking problems that have been alluded to are all due to people parking illegally, if I understand them correctly. I don’t follow how a resident scheme directly improves this. Surely it’s just about enforcing the highway code?
The people I feel really sorry for are those who live just outside the zone. Visiting friends and family, shop workers, nannies, cleaners, tradesmen are all going to park just the other side of the line during the day, while there will be plenty of empty spaces outside the houses that they’ve come to visit. And why include Saturday and Sunday? Is there really a problem with people driving to London Road station at the week-end?
(1+2) Clearly we can’t have a national referendum every time a CPZ is considered. A border line has to be drawn somewhere to decide who will be consulted; obviously, wherever you draw it, there may be people outside that would wish to have been inside. I think what you suggest was in fact done. The northerly roads that voted “No” were included because they might suffer vehicle displacement from the main problem area if the scheme were approved. The vote produced an overall “Yes”, but if a particular road wishes to be removed from the scheme the residents can still make that feeling known before it’s finalised.
(3) We don’t really know what people do once they’ve parked their cars, but I think the problem at Preston Park station is pretty much just about the station, whereas in our area the parking problems are more diverse. Would you agree?
Very good to hear from you Hugo. There are loads of people out there who don’t want this scheme. I just wish that they will make themselves heard, because if they don’t the vocal minority will get their way.
Just found this site after a very unsatisfying exchange of views with Leo Littman. Our invisible local councillors have clearly washed their hands of this one. My twopennorth
1) The report to the transport committee actively excludes the views of our neighbouring areas who will be affected by displaced parking – Nor were they canvassed at the time of the consultation or now. Surely any such consultation should give a voice to the majority of those affected – if they choose not to use that voice then that’s fine, but they need to be offered the right.
2) The majority of roads affected are against the scheme – there is a rough split between the north and the south, but as Springfield road is the longest part of the pyramid with a large number of flats (i.e. one vote per occupant). Why does the council not consider a smaller areas for the CPZ – i.e. those roads who voted for it?
3) If it is an issue of commuters leaving their cars all day, and the scheme has to go ahead, then why not do as Preston park station and have a one hour exclusion period, which stops the commuters but not the tradesmen, people accessing business in Fiveways etc. .
All those arguments and others were considered and discussed before the consultation and people decided on their votes bearing them in mind.
It’s clear that we’re not going to agree on the scheme so we’ll just have to agree to differ.
All the best.
(i) Where does that figure come from? I don’t know how many cars park in the area now, or how many spaces the scheme has. If you have that information please share. If it’s Martin’s “4 parking spaces on each corner, that’s 16 per junction’ and therefore about 200 spaces” figure then we need to lose those cars: they’re parked dangerously and illegally.
(ii) No. Gren points out that provision has been made for businesses; also there are plenty of buses and a railway station.
(iii) No. See your own point (vi) or ask anyone who lives here.
(v) No. It will be easier – you’ll just give them a visitor voucher (or they can use the P&D areas for a short visit).
(vi) I have absolutely no idea what people do after they park their car here. Has a survey been done?
(vii) I’d like to think that the intelligent folk of this area weighed up all factors before deciding which way to cast their vote. The majority came down in favour of the scheme.
ok – do you agree
i) there will be 200 fewer places to park in this area due to the position of yellow lines etc?
ii) Do you agree that this is going to cause enormous problems to schools nurseries small shops, garages, churches, pubs in the area, nurses visiting the elderly and sick in their homes? (This scheme may cause the failure of some of the businesses). Some nurseries have already contacted me with their concerns as the staff arre not going to be able to park therefore work).
iii) Do you agree that most of the parking issues in this area are at night when the parking scheme is not in use?
iv)Do you agree that a community is not just about houses but all the elements that make up that community?
v) Do you agree that it is going to be difficult for family and friends to visit in this area.
vi)Do you agree that most of the problem during the day is people from other areas parking so they can use the train. Their cars are parked all day while they go to work?
v) Have you considered that with this scheme and the costs involved, it still may not solve the parking issues?
This scheme has to be carefully considered because once its in, we wont be able to get rid of it.
Susan: I was just wondering what level of turnout would satisfy you?
We agree that it would be nice to see more done about the dangerous and illegal parking. Presumably the problem is limited resources; we’ll see many more traffic wardens around once the new scheme starts.
No one had the right to park outside his house, nor will he when the scheme comes in; on that we also concur. Many local residents can’t park within a 10 min walk of their house sometimes; with residents’ parking they’ll be able to get much closer.
We probably don’t agree on much else. For example, I consider the council to be legitimately elected.
65% turnout compared with a 40% turnout in this situation – what are you saying?
Tt may be classed as a rresidential area in your eyes but are you aware of all the schools nurseries, small businesses shops garages churches pubs and cafes/restaurants, etc in this area. All these things make up a community not just houses. Also remember all these business pay far more rates then any house and all the cars pay road tax etc and are leagally allowed to park – unless they are illegally parked then there are existing laws to legislate against this
residents have visitors as well! Why should we have to PAY for something that has previously not had a cost. Also why have the times excluding people during the day when most of the problem is in the evening – crazy
Do you accept the result of the 2010 General Election (65% turnout)?
With respect, this is a residential area and a significant majority of residents who could be bothered voted for the scheme knowing the cost of permits and vistor vouchers.
There is a number of permits allocated to the school and businesses can purchase visitor vouchers if they require them. The area is very well served by public transport for staff and parents who are unable to walk to the school or business premises.
All this weekend and every evening there are vehicles parked on all the corners of Southdown Avenue which is dangerous and contravenes the Highway Code.
There are already traffic laws in existance for people who park illegally – perhaps the traffic wardens should patrol the areas more often. Just because you can’t park your car outside your house, you could still park in one of the other roads and walk back. Why does this mean that a ‘paid for’ parking scheme has to be imposed on everyone?. Also just because you have paid for a permit ONLY allows you to park in an area controlled by the scheme, so you might still have to park in another road! and what about your family and visitors?
Susan: unless there’s some stipulation in the rules, there is no minimum.
I see from http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/index.cfm?request=c1244854 that the council was elected on an overall 41% turnout. Do you accept that result?
er – you might be able to pay thousand but others may not. Some find it hard to get their car through the MOT or pay their insurance.Now they also have to pay this extra “tax” of a permit which will not necessarily allow you to park outside your house -only within the scheme area – and what are you going to do with your visitors/family and any tradesmen? Where are the teachers and the people working in the small business such as the nurseries going to park. They are also part of the community and deserve some consideration. They can’t just up and move, that takes time and in the meantime are they going to get ticket after ticket for trying to go to work?
doesn’t there have to be a minimum turn out for it to be a viable vote?
Martin, I find your claim “At the moment there is plenty of space to park” very surprising. Do you live in the area? If so, presumably not Rugby, Florence or Springfield. There is double parking (particularly outside Fiveways Nursery at the bottom of Florence), parking across driveways and parking on corners. It’s no surprise that those roads voted 80+% “Yes”.
Parking at junctions is dangerous; the new scheme may save lives. I think you should consult your copy of The Highway Code:
217: DO NOT park your vehicle or trailer on the road where it would endanger, inconvenience or obstruct pedestrians or other road users. For example, do not stop
near a school entrance
anywhere you would prevent access for Emergency Services
at or near a bus stop or taxi rank
on the approach to a level crossing
opposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction, except in an authorised parking space
near the brow of a hill or hump bridge
opposite a traffic island or (if this would cause an obstruction) another parked vehicle
where you would force other traffic to enter a tram lane
where the kerb has been lowered to help wheelchair users
in front of an entrance to a property
on a bend.
I saw your notice re on street parking today and agree. In addition to having to pay to park outside your home and the shear inconvenience of having to book a pass for visiting relatives and tradesmen in advance’ you will loose 4 parking spaces on each corner, that’s 16 per junction’ and therefore about 200 spaces. At the moment there is plenty of space to park’ once the scheme is in, who knows.
A referendum has to be decided by the votes cast; it’s pointless speculating which way those that didn’t respond would’ve gone. We live in a free country; some people exercised their right not to vote. What counts is that 58% of those that did respond said “Yes”. That IS a majority and, as Gren points out: “that’s democracy”. I’m sure you realise that “everyone needs to be in favour of the scheme” would be unworkable. If a single dissenter could stop any project nothing would ever get done.
Compared to the cost of cars the scheme is very cheap. Anyone that can afford the thousands to buy a car must surely be able to budget for a little over two quid a week to park it.
you may be fortunate enough to be able to pencil this extra expense into your budget. Its not just about individuals but everyone needs to be in favour of the scheme. At the moment there is not a majority as only 40% responded to the questionairre. Why did the others not respond? I don’t know. Maybe they they not realise the importance of their vote, or maybe they thought that they would not be taken any notice of anyway or maybe they were away elderly of sick! Who knows. But one thing is certain the scheme affects everyone in this area and therfore everyone should be included.
i was never informed or aware of any public meetings regarding this scheme. i am wondering who else was ‘missed’
if you check the statis of the voting information published by the council – you will see that the 58% is favour of the scheme was on based on only 40% return of the questionairre – NOT a majority – a fear the vocal minority will ‘bully’ this scheme into operation
not a majority – look at the figures – only 40% replied to the questionarre so 58% of 40% is NOT a majority
it may be 58% but it is 58% of only the 40% of residents who sent in a reply to the questionairre – so not a majority
I’m not a committee member of SRRA so can’t speak for them. I live in the area – do you? If so, you should attend the residents’ association meetings, as I have.
Looking at the voting figures I see that 58% of respondents were in favour – that’s a majority.
At the moment there are no “RESIDENTS PARKING SPACES”, that’s the point of the new scheme. If you can find the money and conveniently-located space to build a car park, that people from outside the area will use rather than parking for free on the street, that would be very nice.
There was a series of public meetings and discussions at the time of the consultation which resulted in 58% to 42% votes in favour of the scheme (and if Stanford Avenue and Ditchling Road votes are discounted the vote was 69% yes to 31% no). That’s democracy.
The Association is officially neutral regarding the scheme but I suspect that the majority of members are in favour.
I am very very unhappy about the parking scheme proposed for this area and I know that others feel the same. I filled in a questionnaire and have seen the results. It would seem that only a 40% return was recorded which only showed that half that number wanted the scheme. This is not a majority. The councillors have not been helpful so far, I have made a complaint to the council and asked for an inquiry into the handling of this situation. I am interested to hear the views of the association.
The nursery near us is starting a petition and the small businesses in and around this area are going to suffer. What we need is a car park for the rail users so they don’t use up all the residents parking spaces. This is going to cost everyone!
Tel 01273 553900 mobile 0790 380 4950
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.