You write:

Such parking problems as we have are caused by the council's divide and
rule policy of CPZ-ing an area, forcing cars into the neighbouring area,
then offering to 'fix' things with another CPZ. Get rid of the lot of
them (and a majority of the bits built out into the road) and we
wouldn't have a parking or a congestion problem in Brighton.

This is really not correct - congestion and parking problems are caused by communities having more cars than they can fit. Measure the front of an average Hanover house, and then measure the length of an average car - they are apporoximately the same. Do you know anyone with more than one car in their household? Unless they have a double, or triple width house then they are a big part of the parking problem.

I am not keen on the trappings which accompany a CPZ, and am sceptical about the financing of them but am absolutely certain that I don't want to live in a carpark, and that restrictions are long overdue.

I live in Hanover (nearly 20 years) and, if I can't park outside my house, tough. It's the PUBLIC highway not my highway. If someone wants to come down from Liverpool for the weekend and park outside my house let them, they've paid for the road as much as I have.

What would you like to do next, rent out a few feet of the beach to the locals and charge visitors a pound an hour?

Despite the fact it's obviously a money making scheme (or it would be free) and that it's a biased consultation (why do multi-car households get one vote?, why do carless households get a vote at all?) I don't want to have traffic wardens and towaway vans prowling round making visitors' lives a misery.

Such parking problems as we have are caused by the council's divide and rule policy of CPZ-ing an area, forcing cars into the neighbouring area, then offering to 'fix' things with another CPZ. Get rid of the lot of them (and a majority of the bits built out into the road) and we wouldn't have a parking or a congestion problem in Brighton.

But.....

I don't accept your analysis of the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 - what your link shows is the Dept. of Transport complying with its duty under the Act to consider the question of whether to set
a target for road traffic reduction for England by examining a number of proposed measures - if the Hanover and Elm Grove CPZ is one, I'd be grateful if you could point me in the direction of the relevant part of the almost impenetrable civil service-speak.)

Also, you say that offering only one questionaire per household is likely to skew the
results even more toward the car driving minority but many people are complaining that there is often more than one car owner in a household (for example, multi-occupancy houses, homes with two or more workers and/or grown-up children, etc.) and that the one-per-household policy will skew the result the other way.  And, finally, there you go with the 'car driving minority' again - based on what evidence do you say car drivers are the minority in the proposed CPZ area?  (I ask that rhetorically, obviously, since we have agreed not to continue this debate.)

Although our council has not adopted this route, it is perfectly acceptable in law to use a CPZ for reduction of congestion under the Road Traffic Reduction Act which sets binding targets for reduction of vehicle movements. 'Tackling congestion and polution- the Governements First Report'  details under 'local action'  highway/parking capacity reallocation/reductions (for example
through controlled parking zones or increased provision of bus lanes) as a valid strategy for meeting reduction targets. (  http://bit.ly/aShbN3  ) 

As we know from a study of our Local Transport Plan, this is not an avenue chosen by our council, but that does not mean it is not a valid or legally sound approach.

BTW - a majority of 'households' is not the same as a majority of 'residents' - the council offering only one questionaire per household is likely to skew the results even more toward the car driving minority as the form is likely to be completed by the car driver in the household.

I'm not sure we will see eye to eye on this one - I think people should decide based on their broad experience of the way cars impact on their neighbourhood whilst you feel that this should simply be a decision based on access to a parking space and I expect we should leave it at that before we become too repetitive and put everyone off the debate :-)

Simon

Read the relevant legislation.  Ecological considerations concerning car use don't figure in the Road
Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27); the Council - rightly - does not suggest they play any role in the proposed scheme.  There was no question on last year's questionnaire along the lines of: 'Do you think cars are bad for the environment and would you like to see their use reduced in your area?'.

If there's a wider debate to be had about the merits of reducing car use and ownership in Hanover etc. then by all means let's have it - but it's simply not right (nor democratic) to use the CPZ consultation to try to achieve such a contentious political aim.

And there is not a majority of people in Hanover who do not own a car,
actually,
even according to the almost-10-year-old census cited by the pro-lobby.  In any event, of course I don't suggest that those who don't aren't entitled to a say about the parking problems which affect them - inconsiderate or dangerous parking, for example.  Nothing I have said implies that.  Apart from anything else, I for one don't assume that those without a car have made a political choice not to have one and are anti-car.  The only view I suggest is invalid in terms of the CPZ debate is: 'I think cars are bad for the environment so I support the CPZ because it will reduce their number in my area, by the back door'.

btw - in trying to restrict the argument to simply an issue of the best way to park cars you do seem to be trying to shut out the majority of the local population who don't drive cars but feel the impact of parked and moving vehicles, and to render thier opinion invalid.  

SimonB

Of course I am not trying to close the debate; I am concerned that parts of the debate are irrelevant to the issues.  My observations about the potential skewing of the 'yes' vote by the influence of the green agenda were in response to sentiments expressed and arguments advanced not just in this thread (including by you: 'I think that the issues of climate change, oil dependence, air
polution
and the quality of our environment generally does make me think twice
about rejecting this scheme' (May 4, 2010)) but in others and at the public meeting
last week.

It should worry all those interested in a proper debate about the proposed CPZ that a recurring theme in the arguments of those in favour of it is a spurious green political agenda.  It is spurious because it forms no part of the Council's objectives for the CPZ (if it did the scheme would almost certainly be unlawful) and is irrelevant to the issues.  The issues are whether whatever parking problems exist are best addressed by a CPZ rather than - to take the issue of inconsiderate or dangerous parking as an example - simply enforcing road traffic laws (but, of course, that might not make much profit for the Council) and whether problems in relatively small parts of the consultation area should be addressed by a scheme which will have seriously detrimental effects on other parts of the area beyond them.

So I am afraid that the consultation is being used as a cloak by some, whether knowingly or unknowingly.  Nothing particularly sinister about it; I suspect for the most part it is happening through good intentions (god help us) and a failure to appreciate that the issue is not about whether or not you think people should own cars.

An analysis of the results of the questionnaire circulated last year is available, for those interested, at http://present.brighton-hove.g.....ocA.ps.pdf

Further information can be found by looking at agenda item 108 here: http://present.brighton-hove.g.....&Ver=4

According to the results of the questionnaire, by the way, only 21% of respondent households in Area B
(Hanover) said they had no car.  In the survey area as a whole, 80% of
respondent households had at least one car.

To support residents, I would say that each of the 'ladder' streets either side of Southover should have at least 10 'on street' cycle spaces provided. Also, to support the local economy all of our shops and pubs should have generous 'on street' provision.

The council has a programme for provision of cycle parking spaces across the City, and priority seems to be based on how many people request cycle stands in any area. The council has a form on their website: http://bit.ly/bYHO55  I f enough people request, hopefully we will get better provision than the token spaces mentioned in the CPZ proposal

Any thoughts on where anyone would like to see cycle parking (if indeed they would) most welcome.

Simon

OK, so currently there are over 300 signatures on the online petition all against this CPZ. At the meeting at Elm Grove School on Wed, there we're over 500 people most of whom we're against the scheme, with a few very brave voices in favour. There are paper petitions about with around 1500 signatures all against the scheme. It seems to be clear that many people in this district are not just against the scheme but deeply upset by the councils whole approach to this and to the inappropriate nature of it's intention.

Surely a newly galvanised community can now work together to come up with a cohesive working model that looks at the diverse set of needs for everyone living and working and caring in Hanover & Elm Grove and forms a parking strategy that'll work in our favour and not for the councils pocket. But don't assume that pushing this scheme through in it's current form will give us a voice to change and manipulate it's form later on down the process.

Tim

Despite what I may wish for,  I think that the general mood in the area (if the reports of the meeting last night are anything to go by) is of strong opposition to the scheme, and I would be suprised if it continues beyond this consultation and really expect it to go the same way as our last CPZ proposal which was strongly supported by Cllr Joyce Edmond Smith, abt 10 yrs back but was abandoned largely due to local hostility.  The interesting thing though will be to get an idea from the consultation on what people think does need improving; on street cycle parking has been mentioned; better enforcement of illegal and dangerous parking; improved streetscape; better facilities for pedestrians. Perhaps some of the energy galvanised through this campaign can be directed into considering how we can bring about some improvements regardless of a CPZ.

Simon

If people want to achieve a reduction in car ownership then they ought to use political means - they should not use the CPZ as a cloak for their efforts.  Those who are doing so should reflect on the fact that any profit the Council makes from such a scheme must be used for traffic management purposes - i.e. the maintenance of roads, the institution of new parking schemes, etc.  In other words the perpetuation, encouragement and facilitation of the very things they are against.

I can't oppose this scheme because of a modest charge or some inconvenience to car owners, because I feel that the imperative of climate change and the need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels are too strong top give these arguments value. We must start somewhere in reducing car use, and if controlled parking can help deliver this then I am for it.

Where I think I am with you and many of those who raise objections is that the whole process is a bit foggy. Looking at the materials, I am now unsure what my vote will mean. I assume that a big NO vote at this stage will stop the process, but will a YES vote trigger a further consultation for an amended scheme, or will consultants just devise a scheme which they think will meet our needs and build a traffic order around it? The public materials and the information on the council website lack clarity on so many aspects of the scheme, as well as information on what aspect may be non-negotiable and why... I feel that the council and its contractors have offered a very poor explaination of the scheme and its processes so far, and am not suprised that people are worried about the proposed scheme with such poor engagement over an issue which will have a huge impact on our neighbourhood.

I am sadly unable to attend the public meeting tommorow, and would much appreciate it if a brief summary of its procedings could be put online at one of the several websited devoted to this topic

Simon

I think we both want the same thing really which is good.

The figure I got for 99% of Businesses not wanting the scheme is by us visiting the Businesses and talking directly with them about their concerns and how the the scheme would affect trade. I only meant Businesses in the Hanover and Elm Grove area.

I got the statistic about over 600 parking spaces being removed by walking every street that was being adjusted and counting the actual parking spaces in each street.

I prefer to use factual evidence when making any important decisions. For which the parking Scheme is an important decision.

The council however don't have any facts and I feel its their poorly planned proposal has lead to this split within the community. Also the disasterous exhibition only turned people against the proposal.

Mott MacDonald the planners have stated in replies back to us that they won't implement "light touch" schemes as "Businesses have complained people can't park during the 2 hours of restrictions." So how does all day Residents only resolve this? In St Lukes they use "light touch" and Pay & Display. I didnt relialise the St Lukes community had complained it didn't work. its news to me.

Some people feel the cost is too high for the residents permits, its much cheaper in some other towns and cities so are against paying the £108.

Because of the mistakes the council have made so far, people cannot rely on them addressing all the issues correctly prior to implementing the scheme. Instead we are hopefully forcing their hand to adopt a different approach which allows more input by local Businesses and the community. Plus the ability to vote on a thought out plan.

If we had all voted "Yes" and hoped for the best, I doubt we'd have much say in the matter. I do hope the threat of "No" allows discussion and compromise to take place and the council to review their approach.

Im very glad of the discussion forums and its good to hear everyones opinion. I urge you to view the "Say No to Hanover parking Plans" facebook group. I also urge you to post your concerns "For " the scheme there. Any discussion group needs balance.

If you are opposed to this current parking scheme and wish to let
Brighton & Hove Council know that you do not want to have to pay
£108 per year to park in your street, then please sign this petition.

For the council consultation, I think that they will only procede with developing the details of the scheme if they recieve a sufficent amount of YES votes. It is only then that they will put in the neccesary investment to further develop it.  

This is vote NO get NO 

I am interested in what residents think would make the scheme better - I have already commented; more cycle parking and improvements to the pedestrian environment. Some people have thought about the timing - prefering a 1hr per day 'light touch'.

It has been suggested that 99% of businesses are opposed (interested in this figure as the consultation hasn't taken place yet - anyone know how it was arrived at?) This tends always to be the first response from businesses from Cranbourne St and the Lanes in the 1970's, George St Hove and more recently New Road, however all of these examples show that parking restrictions need not be bad for businesses. Why are businesses opposed, and how can the scheme be ammended to take this into consideration?

I think that a YES vote to the consultation backed up by thoughtful and considered views - arrived at in planned public meetings and fora such as this - has to be the right way to procede; a no vote would lose us this opportunity for another 10 years.

Simon

The council admit they put in a proposal without much thought. Also, because they failed to include some of the Resident Association's in the initial planning people are sceptical.

Before saying "No" to the scheme. Lots of people attended the exhibition to ask questions. The council Representatives there would not even commit to saying that the claims in the Information sheet they provided were correct. They couldn't answer any of the important questions, they failed to take notes of peoples concerns and failed to reply to requests for more information. Surely the council should have used the exhibition to learn more about residents concerns. Not place two people with limited knowledge of the scheme as frontmen just to suck up any criticism.

All I want is the council to provide some statistic's to backup their initial claims that the parking scheme will work. As do most people that are against this scheme.

Hopefully the meeting on Wednesday will make progress and highlight that the community want a scheme that works best for them, not best for the councils pockets.

I was for the scheme until I spoke with the council, its them that made me vote "No".