SurreyCouncil LAC meeting next Friday at Haslemere Hall. View agenda, questionnaire results and parking proposals here.

Here is the agenda for the 21st September 2012 Surrey County Council Local Committee (Waverley) meeting to be held in Haslemere Hall at 2pm (with public questions at 1.30pm).

As with the agenda of the 22 June 2012 LAC meeting,

Members of the public are informed that permission to electronically record the meeting is at the discretion of the Chairman.

Item 7 of the meeting is: REVIEW OF ON-STREET PARKING IN HASLEMERE: PHASE 1 – RESPONSE TO PETITIONS

To agree next steps following the recent consultation process (including a response to petitions presented at the meeting on 22 June 2012).

You may be interested to view the questionnaire responses: ITEM 7 HASLEMERE PARKING ANNEXE 3 – RESPONSE SUMMARY TABLE

These are the parking proposals (map format) for Tanners Lane (North), Church Lane, High Lane, Derby Road (East), Bunch Lane, Sandrock, Courts Hill Road (East), Courts Mount Road, Bridge Road, Popes Mead, Chestnut Avenue, West Street, Beech Road, Grayswood Road.

These are the parking proposals (map format) for Lion Lane, Lion Mead, Lion Green, Junction Place, Liphook Road, St. Christopher’s Green, St. Christopher’s Road, Kings Road (West), Kings Road (East), Longdene Road, Courts Hill Road, Hill Road, College Hill, Three Gates Lane.

———————————————————————————————————–

Related article to residents’ permits, this article about Leatherhead where, in March 2012, residents saw their residents’ permit fee increase by 75%.

4 comments for “SurreyCouncil LAC meeting next Friday at Haslemere Hall. View agenda, questionnaire results and parking proposals here.

  1. Victorialeake
    14/09/2012 at 15:07

    This is my question to the Surrey County Council LAC next Friday, Haslemere Hall.

    Dear Members,

    Surrey County Council admitted both in public and in private meeting that they had only focused on the roads in Haslemere that had off street parking and had forgotten to include roads in the Town Center that had limited parking or indeed no parking. Do you think that that is a sensible way to implement a parking scheme in Haslemere or indeed any town center?

    Documentation relating to Surrey County Councils maladministration:

    1) Steve Renshaw (County Councillor) – Public meeting held the 21st January 2012 in Haslemere Town Hall on page 7 of 38 (1st Attachment)
    http://haslemereparking.com/wp-content/uploads/Haslemere_Town_Council_Meeting_24-1-12-41.pdf

    Question:

    “Why are there no proposals for residents of the Town Centre who do not have access
    to road frontage such as Lower Street and Shepherd’s Hill to have permits to park in
    other roads?”

    Steve Renshaw response “I admit this was an oversight. We hadn’t picked it up and I’m working with officers to provide a solution for those residents because it is unacceptable not to give them that option.”

    2) Steve Renshaw comments on Lower Street/Shepherds Hill ROPS – Article from the Haslemere Herald, Friday 19th February 2012 (2nd Attachment)
    http://haslemereparking.com/?attachment_id=3068

    “Residents in Lower Street and Shepherd’s Hill, who only have limited parking, have said they were left out of the original consulation, but want to be included if residents’ permits are adopted by the county. They have since met with Mr Renshaw, who said he accepted that Surrey County council had “overlooked them”, but would seek to rectify the matter.”

    Kind regards,

    Victoria Leake

  2. grayswoodcommuter
    17/09/2012 at 17:25

    Just had a chance to look at the ‘revenue’ maps. Naturally one is drawn to the revenue opportunities Surrey are making for themselves – but I guess there are argument both ways, in that paid for places will free up more regularly and thus provide a better service for a wider set of people. But let’s look at some inherited evil this plan suggests:

    1. Pay and display from 08:30 to 20:00 – really? that is just silly – there can only be an argument for charging during times at which you want to see turnover
    2. Wide quiet roads like Beech rd – almost totally double yellow – why? What purpose does this serve other than displacement, and satisfying a few nimbies who don’t like to see parking. This will be regretted when beech rd becomes a rat run – with speed (speed well limited now by carefully going around the few parked cars.
    3. The whole of Haslemere as one large double yellow line lock-down – this is the same plan as before with some sugar coating of politics and public meetings. There has to be an alternative – even I will buy a season ticket, if you can make a car park that I am allowed to use, near the station.
    4. School run for 350 children at St Barts. You won’t even be able to park for 5 mins to join the walking bus. It will be shocking. Lets face it, if you propose good restrictions that are well thought through, people will comply. Go for total restriction, and I can foresee a significant refusal to comply. Just park anywhere – there is no real presence of police nor warden anyway. Is that right – no, will it happen if forced – yes.

    Can we have the elections early? I’m ready to start proposing Haslemere think about voting for individuals, not parties when looking at local councillors. Their political affiliation is not material – their ability to listen and act is what counts.

  3. Editor
    17/09/2012 at 17:58

    Some comments on this blog post have not displayed on the comments box on the front page.

    You may view them here: http://haslemereparking.com/?attachment_id=2999

  4. Victorialeake
    18/09/2012 at 07:01

    Letter to the members of Surrey Council LAC meeting next Friday at Haslemere Hall. Haslemere Parking on the agenda from a resident in Lower Street.

    I am writing to you as a member of the Local Waverley Committee that is meeting on 21 September to discuss parking in Haslemere. I wanted to provide you with some important information which is not contained in the report by Richard Bolton (RB) on parking in Haslemere. I apologise for the length of this e-mail as I know you are likely to have much to read – I have tried to organise the material below so that it is as accessible to you as possible, creating annexes with supporting evidence which you only need refer to if you wish.

    I live in Lower Street and will be significantly and permanently adversely affected by these proposals if they are implemented. Lower Street (and Shepherds Hill) are similar to some other roads in Haslemere in that many of its residents have always parked in adjacent roads because there is little off- or on-road parking in the conservation area which they form part of. There are three main points I wish to bring to your attention:

    1) David Hodge, leader of SCC, made a statement in May this year: “I believe the best solutions will come from residents and other stakeholder groups in the town, because they know their community better than anyone. The working group will allow us all to work together to resolve the issues and come up with a long term plan.” There has been no working group, no attempt by SCC to engage with local residents on possible solutions (eg one hour ban during the day to stop commuters parking all day). RB’s report merely picks up from where SCC left off with the previous failed proposals by confining itself to responses to petitions received by SCC from three sets of roads in June (see main summary of RB’s report). In fact, SCC held a closed meeting on 21 June which Lower Street and Shepherds Hill were not invited to and were not represented. Having discovered it was happening, we wrote to RB who assured us, prior to the meeting, that it was merely a scoping meeting (Appendix 1a, email from Richard Bolton) but according to both Steve Renshaw and John Furey (Appendix 1b), it was where SCC took the key strategic decisions which underpin RB’s report.

    (2) A key learning point from the previous failed proposals was that parking issues in Haslemere are intrinsically interconnected: so narrow solutions that may work for one set of roads can significantly disadvantage other sets of roads. (Please seeYouTube video link provided http://youtu.be/E_t2w-dG49Y) filmed during Lower Street road closure in August 2012 for Gas Works. There are over 23 cars parked in Lower Street excluding the cars parked in Shepherds Hill, notwithstanding that this was peak holiday time and many of our neighbours were away. Bizarrely, SCC have simply tried to sweep these cars under the carpet). SCC has not even attempted to tackle the fundamental issue of interconnections, undertaking no analysis or an Equality of Impact Assessment (see Appendix 2, my FOI request to SCC on 20 August for analysis that SCC undertook in producing its narrow ROP proposals exhibited on 9 August in Haslemere Hall; and David Curl at SCC unable to provide anything in response within the statutory 20 day FOI response window). Instead SCC have used a beggar-thy-neighbour approach of effectively asking particular residents whether they want a parking space outside their home.

    (3) The presentation of data in the report is disingenuous. First, the on-line survey offered no option but for ROPs so resident responses quoted in the report have to been seen in the light of residents fearing the impact that other roads having ROPs would have on them. Second, the report pretends that a comprehensive survey of roads wanting ROPs was undertaken whereas Lower Street residents received a letter asking for their views on the implementation of ROPs in nearby roads, not ROPs for themselves (see the letter we received from SCC, Appendix 3a) and there was no place on the SCC website for Lower Street residents to submit their views (see Appendix 3b, the screen shots of the website). So my response by e-mail to RB and David Curl (Appendix 3c) could not be recorded in the statistics in RB’s report. Third, RB’s report downplays repeated resident concerns over car displacement with no analysis whatsoever (see Appendix 2, above). It is quite obvious that if ROPs are to have a significant effect they must, by definition, displace cars.

    I had understood that the central parking issue in Haslemere was that of commuters. A simple word search of the word “commuter” in RB’s report finds it used once, in the very last paragraph 8.3, in what RB calls “Phase 3” (which looks like some distant aspiration for parking in Haslemere). SCC seems to have forgotten what it is trying to do.

    The process followed by SCC has caused much distress and anxiety to the residents of Lower Street and Shepherds Hill. I don’t pretend there are easy solutions to parking in Haslemere, but simply bowing to the pressure of individual interest groups is not the way to find them. The way forward, in my view, is to present to residents a range of possible high level parking options (including short time period curfew parking to prevent commuters parking in the Town Centre), an analysis of the pros and cons of those options, including how they address the issue of commuter parking, and to seek the views of residents both in writing and through meetings.

    I hope that you take this information into consideration when reviewing Richard Bolton’s report and making your decision.

Comments are closed.