Residents parking

Councillors voted on 15 January 2013 to include the area covered by Southdown Rise Residents Association in the Area J residents parking scheme. Councillors also agreed that the Round Hill area should be included in the scheme.

The Traffic Regulation Orders were advertised in in the local press, on-street and on the council’s website in February.

SRRA discussed the proposals and submitted a summary of views to the traffic officers. The comments and officers’ responses are here: SRRA TRO comments March 2013.

The Traffic Order was approved by the Council’s Transport Committee on 30th April, full details of the decision are on the council’s website here.

The scheme took effect on Monday 1st July. 

74 thoughts on “Residents parking

  1. Hugo Luck

    Can’t see the money angle Andy. The vast majority of the money comes from permits, not pay and display revenue – which brings in the same money whether you have light touch or full exclusion. There are so many empty spaces in the north of the patch day and night that the 9-8 is an absolute mockery. I do feel it’s a matter of council officers and our councillors taking the easier option rather than considering flexibility. They are there to make our lives easier, not the other way around. It’s obviously an easier option to say “we’ve had a lot of people e-mail” rather than get on the doorstep (it’s not that big a patch) and actually talk to people. If we want to introduce a new service in the NHS we have to carry out a number of impact assessments and consider all available options – I don’t see any evidence of that here.

    I don’t think the recent CPZ experience is a good analogy, they had a gun held to their heads by the problems caused by our CPZ. And again, the clear message put forward by the council was that light touch schemes don’t work.

    As for CPZ and public transport – I think it was you at the time that said that teachers, teaching assistants (paid just above minimum wage BTW), church attenders etc. should get the bus – not really an option if the transport is unaffordable. So my point is, make public transport affordable and my long standing objection to CPZ would weaken considerably. The only subsidies for public transport are for pensioners and disabled – the latter who can park in disabled spaces anyway, so not an issue here.

  2. Andy Briggs

    I don’t think anyone would disagree with your objectives. The fact that they would be very difficult to achieve isn’t much of an objection – everything’s difficult – the problem would be finding the money. A more detailed/complex consultation would have to be more expensive, and if it produced too many candidate schemes it would be unlikely there’d be a clear majority in favour of one of them. [Fair Parking In Fiveways had loads of different plans: they ended up supporting the full CPZ option as presented.]

    Light touch schemes don’t produce the revenue to pay for enforcement. A hard-hearted councillor might say “Okay, I’ll pay for your traffic wardens. Now, what would you like me to cut to pay for them?”

    Like most people, I’m with you all the way on public transport. It’s hard to understand how it’s so expensive. That said, doesn’t surplus money made by residents’ parking schemes help subsidise public transport? Would matters be worse without CPZs?

  3. Andy Briggs

    I am sorry Hugo. I just can’t get this set up correctly so that I get notified when there’s a new post (even when I tick the box ?!) – I only notice by checking, and sometimes I forget for a while. That’s quite a long post (on March 4th); I’ll get back to you when I have a bit of time.

  4. Hugo Luck

    Have to say Andy, your silence whenever a counter view to complete CPZ is proposed is pretty par for the course now. Why ask for views if you’re not prepared to comment?

  5. Hugo Luck

    I thought you’d never ask Andy.

    For starters I’d talk to residents about what would work for them rather than offer one option based on what was worked elsewhere in Brighton. This is antagonistic, divisive, and allows local councillors to cop out under a cover of uninformed consultation. Though I don’t quite hold with Jan’s point of people living outside brighton making decisions, I do think more responsibility should be given to localities to design solutions for their area, rather than solely relying on the experience of council officers to inform the traffic committee – experience which until zone J was largely gained from more central areas and not primarily residential ones.

    I’d allow consideration of schemes which reflect the granularity of a neighbourhood. So specifically taking tyour point about designed a scheme for our area from scratch, to take our area, clearly for roads like Springfield road where there is high occupancy to space ratios (3:1) and the station, a heavy handed 9-8 7 days per week makes sense. For those in the north of the area, where the ratio is nearer 1:1, all that would be needed to counter any displacement from commuters is a midday restriction monday to friday, which allows visitors, carers, weekend use of local businesses etc.

    I take your point about car ownership. I don’t think a CPZ will ever discourage that, but I think there is an issue with multiple car ownership. So the price of permits (which are far higher than similar, comparable areas in terms of demographic) should be cost of administration for first permit, and then much higher (where they are now) for further vehicles. This would also reduce opposition which came in (and you’ve noted) at the traffic orders stage about price.

    At a more macro level (and it’s those pesky commuters again) I ‘d take a more holistic view and work on affordable public transport along the main town arteries. When it’s north of a tenner for a family to get into town and back by bus, car use is always going to be the more affordable choice. Reductions in permit costs for car sharing scheme membership would be an option (or very low cost visitors permits for weekends). For local busineses, who rely on passing trade, 10-20 minute grace periods in any CPZ would help Barfields, Ravens etc. rather than shoppers carrying on to the free parking mecca of ASDA.

    That’s off the top of my head. in short, if there was one thing I wouldn’t do, it’s the current situation of the agenda be driven by experts/bureaucrats. I’m a bureaucrat myself, albeit not in local government, and we will do what we have always done unless challenged.

    How does that sound?


  6. Andy Briggs

    Perhaps the way forward would be for us to forget, for now, the CPZs that are already in place (or proposed). If you were designing a residents’ parking scheme from scratch, what features would you definitely include (and/or definitely not include)? Would you have a consultation, or perhaps let a team of experts decide how and where it should operate? Maybe remove the need for CPZs by reducing the number of cars somehow!? You can probably think of other questions and ideas to be considered.

  7. Hugo Luck

    I wish I knew Jan. I suspect the Genie is out the bottle – CPZ for the minority of roads who were affected by parking issues is as the ring to Golum – precious, to be protected at all costs, and they can’t understand why others wouldn’t want it. I’m similarly entrenched in my views that it’s a divisive policy (as evidenced by the near 50:50 vote in our area) and as such is unlikely to be overturned as the council can hide behind a veneer of democracy . Our councillors and residents association have on record declared neutrality on the issue so I’m not sure where to go. Any suggestions gratefully received.

    Sorry if that sounds negative, but I’ve been trying to find a considered, reasonable debate on CPZ for over 18 months without success. I’m sure it’s somewhere….

  8. Andy Briggs

    Hi Jan,

    I don’t know what evidence there is that some CPZ decision makers don’t live in the Brighton area, but why would that be relevant? Designing a CPZ seems to be much like solving a sudoku puzzle – where you come from shouldn’t make a difference. Are you advocating a discriminatory recruitment policy to ensure that these people all come from Brighton and Hove? Not everyone can afford to live here. In any case, would you have confidence in the decisions made by someone who lives in the affected area, or has family and friends there?

    By the way, I wouldn’t call this thread a “spat”. Hugo and I don’t agree on this issue, and probably other things besides, but that doesn’t mean we’re going to war (I hope!); it’s simply the airing of opposing views. Similarly, having more than one political party brings about disagreements, but no one’s suggesting that a one party state would be an improvement.

  9. Jan Mathew

    So anyone got any ideas about how we might proceed in order to stop the tail wagging the dog? It seems that some of the Brighton and Hove officers who are making these decisions (often reluctantly ratified by elected members) don’t even live in Brighton.

  10. Hugo

    Thank you Jan. The far more considered, and in my opinion absolutely spot on point that I should have made – instead I got drawn back in to old debates that will never be resolved. It’s an entirely divisive policy and serves nobody in the long run.

  11. Andy Briggs

    Sorry Hugo, I couldn’t find the bit about the objections in that document. No doubt they are there, but in any case, people saying things like “I don’t want to pay for parking” aren’t as important as properly reasoned representations delivered in the nature of an appeal; your letter to the council would be an example, and Martin tells us there were others too – my earlier post claiming “There were no representations” was incorrect. It seems that these were all dismissed by the (in my opinion) always winning argument that an excluded road inside a zone would be swamped. A road such as Preston Drove, that would form part of a proposed border, obviously has a better case, but some Stanford Avenue residents tried that last time without success (anyone know why?).

    The roads that voted “No” would presumably expect everyone else to be held to a “No” majority if that had been the outcome; so when the result was an overall “Yes” they should respect that. I don’t support them, because I do not agree with what they say, but I will defend to the death their right to say it.

  12. Jan Mathew

    I’ve dropped in late to this recent spat, but at the meeting last August made the case that current policy and practice serves to pit neighbour against neighbour, road against road, zone against zone and community against community. A great way for Brighton to be.
    Some of us still insist that a whole City review is needed, with proper representation and some blue sky thinking. But that would never happen unless we all stood together and took a bird’s eye view of our individual investments.

  13. Hugo Luck

    Since you ask Andy, the link is here -$$ADocPackPublic.pdf

    It details the 160+ objections, notes that a majority are from the northern streets, and then refutes them on the grounds that you always get more objections at that. It then refutes the majority of objections one by one based mainly on the experience of officers in other areas.

    There’s also the discussion we had at the time on this website Andy – I said I’d fully support the roads that voted yes (and said so in my letter to the council) and asked you for your support for our roads who said no. you went very quiet.

    So I wouldn’t bother with the biblical study Andy. Might try a bit of empathy though. 🙂

  14. Gren Nation

    There’s an interesting comment about Preston Drove in chapter 5.32 on page 348 –
    ‘It is the view of the majority of respondents in Preston Drove and of four ward councillors that Preston Drove should be removed from the scheme. The advantage of this is that could form an effective boundary against displacement to streets further north given the extent of road space without frontages. The number of parking spaces in this street exceeds the number of households by a ratio of at least 4:1. It could also provide parking opportunities for visitors to the tennis and croquet club and other amenities. The disadvantage is that it would reduce significantly the number of spaces in the proposed parking scheme and the street may suffer displacement parking. The loss of spaces overall could be an issue if the Preston Park Triangle was a stand- alone scheme so if Preston Drove is removed then there is even more reason for the triangle to be an extension to the existing Area J which is currently operating under capacity. Officer recommendation – on balance, and taking into account stakeholder views Preston Drove should be removed from the scheme.”

    Currently operating under capacity? Not in Southdown Avenue at night.

    I think the removal of Preston Drove is likely to result in even more vehicles parked on corners which will make the road more dangerous, particularly for pedestrians and drivers living in the proposed extension. I suspect residents of Preston Drove will change their stance very quickly after implementation.

  15. Martin Cross

    Representations were made on behalf of the streets that voted no last time, but the officers, quite rightly in my view, took the stance that any streets excluded would face the brunt of displacement and so would seek inclusion very quickly. So all streets were included, and people like myself have to pay £120 to allow others to park close to their houses when we never had a problem in the first place. The intervention of Cllr Shanks is interesting in that she represents Withdean, and only the part of Preston Drove below Balfour Road is part of her ward. If it was included, at her end, the displacement would have more effect in Gordon, Herbert, Bates and Loder Roads. By successfully objecting, she limits some of the displacement to Preston Drove. But it’s only a matter of time. Did the Preston Park Councillors support the inclusion of Preston Drove?

  16. Andy Briggs

    Perhaps I have not shown sufficient dedication to the holy scriptures. I can’t find the minutes you mention – could you supply a link?

    We spoke about roads seeking exemption on this forum in March last year. Did you (or other residents) put forward a case for your road to be excluded from the scheme? If you did, and lost, and Cllr Sue Shanks did, and won, it would be interesting to know what factors produced the different outcomes.

  17. Hugo

    If you read the minutes Andy you’ll see there were representations made last year for roads that voted no to be exempt. They were ignored on the grounds that the council didn’t do that. But why let facts get in the way of blind faith eh?

  18. Andy Briggs

    I think the process was fair and consistent.

    In our consultation there was a majority “Yes” but, viewed in isolation, your road was overall “No”. There were no representations and the scheme as it appeared on the questionnaire was passed.

    In the Preston Park Triangle consultation there was a majority “Yes” but, viewed in isolation, Preston Drove was overall “No”. In this case Cllr Sue Shanks made a written representation requesting that Preston Drove not be included in the scheme (item 4.16 on page 345 of$$ADocPackPublic.pdf). What her document contained I don’t know, but it seems it was sufficient to persuade the committee that Preston Drove should be excluded from the scheme.

    My point is that the road-by-road scores aren’t relevant, in that they’re not part of the objective or result of the consultation.

    There is considerably more evidence for the existence, beneficence and power of the council than of god. There may be better belief systems, but I’m going to follow this one pending further evidence.

  19. Hugo Luck

    You missed the point again Andy – or I’m not explaining it well enough. This is about fairness of process, not whether you get the outcome you want.

    However, I do admire your blind faith. If I had it I’m sure life would be a lot easier!

    Best wishes

  20. Andy Briggs

    I get your point Hugo, I just think that the consultation wasn’t designed to allow odd roads to opt out. Does the questionnaire imply such a possibility? If the residents of a certain road wish to lobby, and the data from the consultation supports their case, naturally they’ll use it. My claim is that if Preston Drove isn’t included that’ll be because the residents there ran a successful campaign with that objective, not because the consultation indicated that their road voted “No”.

    If the city was just one big zone there would be spaces in some parts and gridlock in others. I’m placing my faith in those that have responsibility for planning CPZs that they’ll arrange things such that the parking load is as evenly spread as possible. I suppose vociferous minorities will let them know if they miscalculate.

    Of course the parking issues could’ve been handled differently, but that wouldn’t necessarily be better. We disagree – I’m satisfied with the outcome locally. I’m not alone in that: a majority voted in favour of our extension to Zone J, and those I’ve spoken to are pleased they did.

    For rubbish enquiries you need to go here I’ve reported fly-tipping in my road a couple of times and they responded very quickly.

    It’s always nice to exchange views but, like you, I do have on or two other things I should be doing. I’m not up for getting involved in a very long thread either.

  21. Hugo Luck

    I swore I wouldn’t get into this again, but here goes

    “As I understand it, a CPZ consultation is designed to determine what proportion of households in a particular area are for / against a residents’ parking scheme; the road-by-road scores aren’t relevant.” – that’s my point. Preston Drove are excluded from the scheme because they voted against, this wasn’t allowed for the previous consultation where the majority of roads were against it.

    “Zone J does stretch quite a long way now; Preston Drove (if they’re excluded this time) and roads North will probably be wanting to join too very soon. This sort of thing can’t be unusual in CPZ planning, presumably there are criteria for deciding where / whether to start a new zone. I wonder what they are?” – when a vociferous minority call for it, as with the previous extensions.

    “We have to trust the council only to offer consultation outcomes all of which are good (or at least not too bad) for those that are already in – that appears to be the rules of the game.” – as I’ve said before Andy, I fully respect your blind faith in the council to deliver good outcomes. I just don’t understand it. The mishandling of the parking issues and a load of ripped rubbish bags which have been down my street for most of this week would suggest otherwise.


  22. Andy Briggs

    As I understand it, a CPZ consultation is designed to determine what proportion of households in a particular area are for / against a residents’ parking scheme; the road-by-road scores aren’t relevant. In the forthcoming Scottish independence referendum we can’t have the odd street / town / county leaving the UK with others staying, it wouldn’t make sense.

    Zone J does stretch quite a long way now; Preston Drove (if they’re excluded this time) and roads North will probably be wanting to join too very soon. This sort of thing can’t be unusual in CPZ planning, presumably there are criteria for deciding where / whether to start a new zone. I wonder what they are?

    Changes are going to be made to Zone J which depend on the result of a vote by outsiders (much like the Scottish independence referendum). We have to trust the council only to offer consultation outcomes all of which are good (or at least not too bad) for those that are already in – that appears to be the rules of the game.

  23. Hugo Luck

    I note the goal posts have shifted – preston drove are excluded as they voted ‘no’, but the majority of streets in our area who voted ‘no’ can lump it.

  24. Martin Cross

    Have just seen that the result of the CPZ consultation in the Preston Triangle is that Zone J is to be further extended to include all the streets consulted (except Preston Drove which voted against, and will not be included in the scheme. Do people have views about this? There has been/will be no consultation with existing Zone J residents.

Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.