Minutes of the @SurreyCouncil Local Area Committee (Waverley) September 2012

These are the draft minutes of the September 2012 Surrey County Council Local Committee Waverley meeting to be formally agreed at the December 2012 Local Committee Waverley meeting.

This entry was posted in Commuters, Haslemere Parking, Residents, Residents' Associations, Surrey County Council. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Minutes of the @SurreyCouncil Local Area Committee (Waverley) September 2012

  1. Victorialeake says:

    A Resident of Lower Street and Shepherds response to SCC Local Committee Waverley

    To: richard.bolton at Surrey County Council

    Dear Richard

    I refer to the report “Local Committee (Waverley): Additional Items 21 September 2012, Item 5” and in particular the “Committee response” to questions 3a-3d about parking in Lower Street and Shepherds Hill, which became available to the public at the meeting on 21 September. I am copying in all Local Committee (Waverley) members who attended the meeting on 21 September as I assume they take responsibility for this “Committee response”.

    I am writing to you and committee members as there are serious questions as to the veracity of each of the four paragraphs of this Committee response:

    1) The first paragraph of the Committee response states: “Residents are also able to purchase discounted permits for Waverley Borough car parks in the town.” The Waverley website quotes the following car park charges for both residents and non-residents:
    Haslemere Annual
    Chestnut Avenue season £968.00
    Tanners Lane season £753.00
    Weydown Road season £860.00

    In contrast, the exclusive ROPs being offered to residents in your proposed scheme cost £50 for the same parking hours in the day as the season tickets quoted above. Waverley car park spaces are not guaranteed, so residents need to compete alongside shoppers and others for a parking space. Contrary to what was implied in the response in the report, there is no discount available to residents for unrestricted parking in Waverley car parks. There are also, of course, no discounted tickets for second cars or visitors.

    Lower Street comprises many young families and retirees, and some homes are quite modest. Do you think that it is fair and balanced to give some Haslemere residents ROP for £50 per year but expecting other Haslemere residents to pay up to £968 for parking for the same hours in the day, but further from their homes?

    2) The second paragraph of the Committee response states that: “As nothing was proposed to be installed in Lower Street and Shepherds Hill these roads were not part of the exhibition, but residents in the roads were invited to respond to the consultation. The response rate was quite low (20% Lower Street, 38% Shepherds Hill) and although respondents were marginally in favour of residents’ parking, it was not an overwhelming expression of support.” Do you accept, as per my attachment (which I previously also copied to Committee members), that (a) the letter you sent Lower Street residents in fact consulted them on an ROP scheme from which they were excluded? and (b) there was no place on SCC’s website for them to submit any response? If so, do you therefore agree that is sufficient reason for the low response rate, and that Lower Street and Shepherds Hill should be reconsidered in Phase 1 of your plans?

    3) The third paragraph of the Committee response states that: “There will be unrestricted parking in several roads close to the centre of Haslemere which can be used by Lower Street and Shepherds Hill residents.” Your report (“Review of on-street parking in Haslemere: Phase 1 – response to petitions”, para 3.24) lists these roads as: Tanners Lane south, Shepherds Hill (which is has a small parking bay), Hill Road and parts of Courts Hill Road. These roads are as very close, and if not closer to the station and town centre as the roads included in your proposed scheme, where ROPs were considered a priority for Phase 1. I walk past Tanners Lane each weekday on my way to the station, and Tanners Lane south is completely full with commuters even before 7 o’clock in the morning. Do you accept that these unrestricted roads are already deeply affected by commuter and town centre parking, and so, contrary to the Committee response, Lower Street and Shepherds Hill residents will find it very difficult to find parking in these roads?

    4) The fourth and final paragraph of your response states that: “Although there is unlikely to be any significant parking displacement caused by the introduction of residents parking in the roads listed in Item 7 [that is, the roads included in SCC’s ROP and road restrictions], the allocation of residents parking in Tanners Lane and Hill Road, could lead to parking displacement so it is considered that this should also be left to ‘Phase 2’ when the options for additional off-street parking provision in the town should be clearer.” If you look at your own parking proposals, I hope that it is obvious you that Tanners Lane south and Hill Road are amongst a tiny minority of places where off-road parking will be unrestricted in central Haslemere. Given ROPs are meant to displace shoppers, commuters and other all-day parkers, where do you think these displaced cars are going to go, if not to these roads? Furthermore, once you have introduced parking restrictions everywhere except these roads, it is also quite obvious that introducing ROPs in Tanners Lane and Hill Road would cause displacement because they are the only places left to park on the road in central Haslemere. Do you agree that your current proposals therefore leave residents who would park in Tanners Lane south and Hill Road at a significant disadvantage to the residents in roads that you have looked after in ‘Phase 1’? Alternatively, you cannot seriously be saying that the extensive parking restrictions across Haslemere that you introduce in Phase 1 are “unlikely to cause displacement” but the introduction of ROPs in two small roads (which are not considered a priority for ROPs) will cause displacement?

    Please could you also confirm whether SCC or the Local Committee (Waverley) members themselves are responsible for the written response in “Additional Items, 21 September 2012, Item 5”, which was submitted to the Local Committee (Waverley) on 21 September?

    I look forward to hearing your response on these questions.


    Jeremy and Victoria Leake

Comments are closed.