Agenda & report for @SurreyCouncil Haslemere parking meeting on 24th January 2013

Here are the agenda and the officers’ report for the Surrey County Council Local Area Committee (Waverley) meeting about Haslemere parking on Thursday 24th January 2013. The meeting starts at 3pm with public questions from 2.30pm. It will be held at Haslemere Hall.

Agenda for the 24th January meeting (PDF 58KB)

Officers’ report, pages 27-70 (PDF 7MB, a very big file. Please be aware of this if downloading data on a smartphone). Please note it is worth reading pages prior to page 27 as there are petitions and questions about Haslemere parking. Item 7 is REVIEW OF ON-STREET PARKING IN HASLEMERE: PHASE 1 RESPONSE TO STATUTORY CONSULTATION.

This entry was posted in Commuters, Haslemere Action Group Against The Parking Proposals, Haslemere Chamber of Trade, Haslemere Parking, Haslemere Society, Residents, Residents' Associations, Schools, Shopkeepers, Surrey County Council, Town Council, Waverley Borough Council. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Agenda & report for @SurreyCouncil Haslemere parking meeting on 24th January 2013

  1. Victorialeake says:

    Dear Waverley Local Commitee (WLC) members we notice we have some written questions we would like to put please. There are a few more than would normally be the case because WLC members did not ask these questions at the September WLC meeting.

    Paragraphs 2.14 and 2.15 of Richard Bolton’s report state:

    2.14 Following implementation of Phase 1, Phase 2 will follow, which will,
    amongst other objectives mentioned in this report, look at parking
    provision for residents of Lower Street and Shepherds Hill.

    2.15 The highway authority does not have a duty to provide resident parking,
    and residents of these roads must have moved to their properties in the
    knowledge that they did not have off street parking.

    It appears from this that SCC has been discriminatory in prioritising roads for Phase 1. So we have the following questions please:

    In the light of the comments in his report, could Mr Bolton please explain why he has allocated parking in Phase 1 to some Bridge Road residents and who do not have on-street parking on their frontages and to Popes Mead residents in the part of West Street outside the fire station which has no houses fronting it? Do Popes Mead residents own the land in West Street outside the fire station? Is it not also the case that SCC has provided parking in ‘controlled parking zones’ to residents in Guildford where there is no on-street parking on the frontages of their houses?
    Regarding para 2.15, is Mr Bolton saying that the highways authority has a duty to provide resident parking to residents of Popes Mead and other roads included in Phase 1, but not to Lower Street and Shepherds Hill?
    Mr Bolton’s logic suggests that residents of Longdene and Kings Road moved into their homes knowing that they moved next to a station, and that residents of Popes Mead and Beech Road moved into their homes knowing that they moved into the centre of a town with shoppers wanting parking. So why are these residents more deserving of on-street parking than residents of Lower Street and Shepherds Hill? What would Mr Bolton like to say to residents who have lived in Lower Street or Shepherds Hill for more than 40 years, before the council reduced the capacity of the parking area at the top of Shepherds Hill, resulting in those residents being displaced to adjacent roads?
    By what logic does Mr Bolton think that Popes Mead and Chestnut Avenue are so blighted by parking problems that they need an urgent parking solution and yet roads adjacent to them are not blighted at all and can even absorb the displacement from those roads in Phase 1?
    Why does the report (para 1.7) say that the WLC agreed to proceed with Phase 1 proposals when Lower Street and Shepherds Hill residents were told in July 2012, prior to SCC’s consultation and analysis by SCC Officers, by the Deputy Chairman of the WLC (Councillor Renshaw), and then twice by SCC Cabinet Member (Councillor Furey), which he copied to the Chairman of WLC (Councillor Frost), that Lower Street and Shepherds Hill would not be included in SCC’s Phase 1 parking proposals?
    How will SCC address the issues of having discriminated against Lower Street and Shepherds Hill residents in Phase 1 if in the public consultation in Phase 2 reveals that residents in neighbouring roads do not want Lower Street and Shepherds Hill residents parking in their roads?

    We also ask Committee Members specifically whether or not they agree with Mr Bolton’s remarks in paragraphs 2.14 and 2.15 of his report please? If that is provided in a “Committee Response” I would request that this answer be signed off by Committee Members rather than written by an SCC Officer as is usually the case. If members disagree with Mr Bolton, what conclusion do they draw about the equality of impact of Phase 1?

    We have some questions regarding impact of Phase 1 and consideration of alternatives to ROPs.

    What is the estimated car displacement of the proposed ROPs and other road controls?
    What does SCC’s Equality of Impact Assessment conclude on how the proposals affect different residents living in Haslemere town centre?
    What does SCC conclude from its risk and safety assessment of the resulting aggregate displacement of cars from Phase 1?
    What alternatives to ROPs has SCC considered and why are ROPs considered the best option in the centre of Haslemere? For example, a 1 hour curfew which allowed local residents to park in the centre of town would create space by excluding commuters while allowing flexibility in the use of parking space by residents, shoppers and visitors, and being an improvement for all residents in the centre of Haslemere.
    What cost/benefit analysis has been done by SCC officers, and reviewed by WLC members, that ensures that SCC’s plans for phasing of ROPs is the most appropriate long-term on-road parking arrangement in Haslemere?

    One technical question too please:

    Is SCC allowed, in law, to use the same reference number for its current parking proposals as for previous proposals, despite having legally withdrawn those earlier proposals?

  2. AndrewB says:

    At today’s meeting the council need to be reminded that they are spending public money instigating changes to the environment that will make it harder for Haslemere businesses to survive. I quite enjoy “Yes Minister” but are we still in a situation where unelected public sector workers are not held to account for their actions by elected councillors.

    If that’s the case then with council elections coming up the business community should get together and field their own candidates so we have some representation, a clear out might also lead to a more permanent change in attitude of the council.

    A final thought; Dumb things happen when good people do nothing

  3. AndrewB says:

    And having watched, the government then increases your tax or borrows more money to pay for it.

Comments are closed.