The council in its recent consultation does not try to tell residents how they should make their decision or what they should base it on, and I don't think you should either.

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

 

Thanks for the link username – the thing to remeber is that area B and the whole survey had a response rate of just over 30%, which means that nearly 70% haven't expressed an opinion. I would expect that – as the questionaire was largely about parking and cars that those with cars would be more likely to complete it and those without more likely to recycle it. Should be treated with caution….

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

It seems clear that many pro-CPZ residents are hijacking this issue for political reasons – the aim of reducing car ownership/use.  This is not a lawful basis for the introduction of a CPZ and it is a serious concern that the Council's informal consultation process is not designed to weed out 'yes' votes cast on this basis.

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.

Hi 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.

 

I think a lot of people are worried that the council will put in a scheme that suits them rather than the community if we currently say "Yes". Its because they provided a proposal that does not appear to backup their promises of better parking for residents that people have lost faith. Will we get to vote on the final proposal if we say "yes" now. Its not clear.

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".

Mike D said:

BTW, I visited the link on the "Say Yes" leaflet to the National Statistics webpage for Parking Stats in Hanover. The data is from April 2001 so is almost 10 years out of date. I've lived in the area since 1999 and have seen a noticeable change in parking within this time so I feel the stats cannot be used with any accuracy in this arguement. What about the survey the council did last year on car ownership? Why can they produce these as they would be far more relevant?

The census figures are the most recent ones available.  I agree with you that the council should make public the results of their survey – I have asked them to supply it to me, as it would be very helpful to have some more recent figures.

I have lived here since 1994 and I agree that the parking situation has changed over the years, but I don't think we can assume that this change is solely because more local residents now own cars.  Other things have changed too – neighbouring areas now have controlled parking, for example.  I think this has had a clear knock-on effect on Hanover, pushing quite a lot of commuter parking back into our streets from the streets directly around Amex, and down the hill from Kemptown.  Anecdotally, there is also an issue of people with two cars in the Queens Park CPZ storing their second car in Hanover because they are only entitled to one permit where they live.

Walking around Hanover this afternoon, it seemed to me that most streets were pretty full.  I'm not convinced that the only problem with parking occurs when Hanover residents arrive home from work in the evening.

 Somehow, we need to sort this out as a community.  Everybody making individual decisions about their own transport method is what has got us into the situation we are in now.  I don't think the council have handled this well, but I do think it's about time we had a proper discussion about how the streets are used.

If we vote no to the CPZ, there won't be another opportunity to discuss a better scheme for years.  If we vote yes, there will be a process of finalising the details before the plan is formally announced.  I agree that we need much better community consultation on the details – what we have been sent is not the final placement of the bays.  

 

I agree with a parking scheme to improve the area, however im against the ill planned proposal that the council has provided. Therefore im petitioning for a better proposal that better fits our community and saying "No". The "Vote NO" petitions being send around is not to remove any scheme, but to petition for a better fairer scheme. We want to improve parking here.

I've asked the council if the scheme would reducing parking issues in the area and they cannot agree their proposal will work as they have not invested any money yet in planning the scheme properly. 99% of local Businesses are against the scheme as it is as they feel their trade will be affected. How can losing our local shops better the community? (ps. The 1% are undecided) How is it a good idea to place parking directly outside the newsagents in Southover and be unable to use the pavement when a pram would now block the pavement. You'll have to walk around the parked cars in the centre of the road under this scheme.

Asking families to give up their cars just to be "Good Neighbours" will not work. Only drive familes out of the area and let the Landlords move in. This is the input i've had from speaking to 100's of residents over the last few weeks. Both car owners and non car owners. I've spoken with residents that share a house as house prices were too high for them to buy a house on their own. Both needed a car to work due to insufficient public transport. Who gets the permit? Who has to try to look for a new job or consider selling their house? A good scheme is a big deal to some people here.

The majority of people against this scheme feel pressured into voting for something that does not work on paper and the council can give not assurances on. Should the community not have a say on how the scheme should be implemented.

Why are the council not enforcing the current parking restrictions properly to stop people double parking and parking on double yellow lines? This was a large issue for residents and nothing is stopping this being enforced at the moment.

We can reduce\remove pavement parking without removing over 50% of parking in streets like Washington Street where parking is not on the pavement and the road wide enough for cars.

A very large portion of the people against the scheme are only against it as the council WILL NOT say how many cars will be removed under the scheme, How many spaces will be provided for residents and How many people indicated they required a space. The council response is that they have not yet obtained any statistic's yet! Why!

In the leaflet for the scheme it mentions cyclists scared of riding down Southover. Wait until the council introduces the new Slalom system where we have to weave left and right around cars on both sides of the road. Who has right of way under this road plan as both downhill and uphill cars will both giveway or have right of way depending on the side the cars are parked whenthey pass. The council has already said any issues the busses may have with the Southover Street plan is for them to resolve.

Please vote "No" to this proposal that fails in many areas and "Yes" to a proposal that better includes the needs of the whole community. Both Car owners, Non Car Owners, The Elderly who require frequent visits and cannot afford parking Vouchers, making roads safer for children and local Businesses who need passing trade and safety for their visiting customers.

Don't let the council choose your scheme, let the community choose the scheme.

(Note: Some community groups were not consulted during this current proposal)

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

I take your point about the cost and financing of the proposed scheme – I wonder what the economics of running a scheme providing free permits to residents would be, as the income from fines does seem quite substantial!!  I do worry however about thinking of the scheme just on these grounds though, as I think that there are bigger issues at stake than the cost per household of a permit.

At the moment I don't find parking to be a particular problem, and can generally park on my street in sight of my home. I quite like the current parking  arrangements also with parking on both sides of narrow streets, as the limited vehicle carriageway cuts down on rat running and speeding. (I am aware that there is a bit of an up/down divide, with those closer to the bottom of the hill facing more severe pressure.)  Despite everything being fairly OK for me though, 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.

Rather than cost of permit, or the ability to park right outside my home, I am more interested in a scheme which substantially reduces car borne commuting – particularly along the Lewes Road corridor which is an air quality management area with significant human health problems brought about largely by vehicle emissions. If by agreeing to a scheme here, it will benefit air quality and health of our neighbours in the valley then we should really consider supporting the scheme.

The global issues around the role which vehicle emmissions play in contributing to greenhouse gasses and climate change, coupled with concerns around peak oil may seem a bit remote and not relevant to our neighbourhood parking scheme, but if one accepts these positions, and accepts the need to globaly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, we need to start somewhere… I am interested in a scheme which gives an incentive to 'modal shift' – finding other ways to get about rather than private car use – and I would like to view the significant reduction in parking spaces proposed as a part of this process and would like to support this. 

I would like it if the scheme could go further and give some benefits - I would like to see greatly increased on street cycle parking and provision of secure cycle parking units – the scheme proposes a few, but just not enough; If we are to agree to restrict parking and reduce the amount of cars on our streets – how about we look for something better to put there instead? – provision of street planting/'home zone' play streets/excellent street furniture…

I don't think I have finally made up my mind, but I do think that this could be about more than the cost of a permit – thoughts welcome.

Simon