Surrey County Council current parking proposals for Haslemere

In today’s Haslemere Herald, there is a Surrey County Council public notice.

PROPOSED REVOCATION OF EXISTING, AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING AND PROVISION OF NEW WAITING RESTRICTIONS AND ON-STREET PARKING PLACES IN THE HASLEMERE AREA

If you wish to object to the proposed Orders you must send the grounds for your objection in writing to the undersigned* by 16 November 2012 quoting reference 11732/14180/WAV/AK. Details of the proposed changes can be viewed on the Council’s website at www.surreycc.gov.uk/parking/waverley

At the time of posting (8.30am, 19th Oct) the proposed changes were not published on Surrey County Council’s website. Yesterday, I wrote to the Community Partnership and Committee Officer (Waverley) to say there was no update online. This request was submitted to the SCC Parking Team.

The correct link is provided by way of Paul M’s comment below: https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/parking/parking-news-and-updates/parking-news-and-updates-in-waverley

Here are the proposals for (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.

Here are the proposals for: (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.

*Dated: 18th October 2012

Authorising Officer – J Russell

Assistant Director of Highways

Surrey County Council

Any Enquiries relating to this notice should be directed to:

Traffic Regulation Orders Team, Surrey County Council – Highways, Hazel House, Merrow Lane, Guildford, Surrey, GU4 7BQ

Tel: 0300 200 1003 or Email: parking@surreycc.gov.uk

6 comments for “Surrey County Council current parking proposals for Haslemere

  1. Paul M
    19/10/2012 at 13:03
  2. grayswoodcommuter
    19/10/2012 at 21:22

    Made my objection:

    Generally the Haslemere parking restrictions changes are ill advised, and will cause huge problems for normal people of the town.
    1. They only benefit a handful of people
    2. Beech Rd has no current issues, and all houses have off street parking. On road parking is used for the GP overflow and hospital appointments / visiting. It is wrong to make this harder when these are medical needs.
    3. Beech rd cannot be all residents only – residents don’t own their road, we all do. This is also a good place to park for St Barts drop off, and avoid making the school area worse
    4. Beech rd inclusion has no benefits, only causes major issues
    5. No appreciation of displacement – the cars that park safely now, will not disappear. So dangerous parking will start to become more common, as will use of the A286 in the unrestricted parts
    6. Beech rd cannot be resident only with no road markings or sign’s – any penalty will be overturned on legal review

    (Also – residents permits should not be 24/7 – perhaps 10 til 2 as is the norm in other towns)

    Other than the small areas set aside for resident-only closer to the town centre that make perfect sense, the rest is just double yellows for the sake of it.

  3. Paul M
    09/11/2012 at 16:39

    FYI this is how Horsham, E Sussex deals with residents’ parking. http://www.horsham.gov.uk/files/CPZ_Zones10.pdf

  4. AW1957
    09/11/2012 at 20:12

    Lucky Horsham, they have four multi-storey car parks AND a park & ride scheme.

    Oh to have a multi-storey in Haslemere and a park and ride scheme. They should come first and only then should Surrey Council consider plans for residents’ parking schemes.

  5. Paul M
    10/11/2012 at 09:30

    I doubt that would satisfy either the residents, or the people who currently park free on-street. A multi-storey would cost upwards of £2-3m to build. Cuncil tax payers would be rightly enraged if such expenditure was undertaken without a guarantee of a revenue stream to recover the cost, and that means banning non-resident parking or charging the going rate for it.

    As the cost would almost certainly be met through a PFI project, the PFI consortium would require guarantees that the normal captive market of customers would be delivered to them – that is how all PFI projects, whether they be hospitals, roads, or whatever, are sold – and that means introducing the restrictions/charges first.

  6. amh
    16/11/2012 at 22:38

    I submitted an objection this evening. In summary, I focussed on Three Gates Lane. Whilst I welcome restrictions on parking as it has become ridiculously dangerous to drive along that stretch,I suggested that if they introduce a block of Double Yellow Lines, it will simply cause the current parkers to move along Three Gates Lane where there is another dangerous bend. What might work is double yellow lines at internals – at the most dangerous points. In doing this , some parking would be provided for those weekly workers and then enable the closest neighbours to have additional visitor parking.

    I hope it helps support the Objections.

Comments are closed.