Surrey’s Parking Proposal – Little Change

Double-yellow-lines-on-a-road-and-pavement-curb-2101582On 27 June 2016 at the Surrey Elmbridge local committee it was agreed that Surrey’s proposals on parking in Weybridge would be revisited at a meeting between Weybridge Councillors for Elmbridge and Surrey’s representatives.

As preparation for the meeting, it was agreed that Weybridge residents would be invited to send their comments on Surrey’s proposals.

This meeting took place on Thursday 27 July.

Despite the voiced and accepted understanding of most of those present at the June Local Committee meeting that the July meeting would encompass more than minor amendments to the proposal, Surrey’s representatives refused to accept any changes which would have added to or significantly changed the proposals they presented in June, proposals which were returned to them by the committee for further consultation and rework.

This means that the voices of your Weybridge Councillors on Elmbridge and representations from local residents and business people were not heeded.  A slightly amended version of Surrey’s proposal WILL be put out for final consultation in Weybridge (aka endorsement) in September.  During this consultation changes may be made but only to reduce the restrictions and not to extend them.

For your information, the outcome achieved in the meeting was as follows:

Going through each map in turn (you will find the map number in the bottom right hand corner of the page).  When I say no change I mean that the Weybridge meeting Surrey produced no change from the original proposals.  They might still be changes from the current markings we have today.

Map 1.  No change. My request for Beales Lane and Grenside Road were turned down but the school hatching around the school entrance in Glencoe Road could be looked at later.2016 Parking Map1 Thames Street

 

Map 2.  My request for the inclusion of Dorchester Road which had been accepted in June, got challenged by Surrey in the meeting – however it was finally accepted on the basis that residents could indicate their wish not to be included in the CPZ during the public consultation. In Dorchester Road, Elmgrove Road and Gascoigne Road the residents’ parking is to be shortened to 8am – 6pm (from 8am – 8pm) and short-stay parking shortened to 10am – 4pm (from 8am – 8pm).  This to apply to all bays.  A request that there should be no short-stay bays in Gascoigne Road – a cul de sac – was accepted.  My request that there should be short-stay bays in Grotto Road and residents’ parking in Glencoe Road, Mount Pleasant and Radnor Road was turned down.2016 Parking Map2 Dorchester

Map 3.  In Oakdale Road residents’ parking to be shortened to 8am – 6pm (from 8am – 8pm) and short-stay parking shortened to 10am – 4pm (from 8am – 8pm). This to apply to all bays.  No other changes.

Map 4.  In Elmgrove Road, Holstein Avenue and Oakdale Road the residents’ parking to be shortened to 8am – 6pm (from 8am – 8pm) and short-stay parking shortened to 10am – 4pm (from 8am – 8pm). This to apply to all bays.  A request that there should be no short-stay bays in Holstein Avenue – a cul de sac – was accepted.  My request for Monument Green to be included to enable a higher turnover of vehicles was turned down. No other changes.2016 Parking Map4 High Street

 

Map 5. No changes made in the meeting.

Map 6. In Minorca Road the residents’ parking to be shortened to 8am – 6pm (from 8am – 8pm) and short-stay parking shortened to 10am – 4pm (from 8am – 8pm). This to apply to all bays.  Surrey would not consider Wey Road and Round Oak Road.  No other changes.

Map 7.  My request on behalf of Limes Road residents was taken heed of to an extent. The parking restrictions will not though go into the early evening. My request for Heath Road to be a clearway to increase safety for cyclists was turned down.2016 Parking Map7 Limes

Map 8. No changes. My request for Curzon Road to have residents’ parking and for Belvedere Close, Fortescue Road and Heath Road to have some extra restrictions at residents’ request was turned down.

Map 9. No changes.

Map 10.  No changes. My request for Oatlands Drive to be designated a clearway to forestall cars now parking in Queens Road parking there was turned down.

Map 11.  My requests to make Queens Road to be at least 7m wide for cycle safety – at least during the rush hour turned dwon.

Map 12.  My request for short-stay parking outside Glass’ Offices turned down along with my request for removal of parking restrictions in Princes Road to reduce its role as a rat-run.

Map 13.  No changes.

Map 14.  My requests for the new restrictions in Pine Grove to be only placed to allow residents to exit their properties turned down.

Map 15.  A request for the extension by one car length to the restrictions at the Egerton Road and Cavendish Road junction accepted.

2016 Parking Map15 Egerton

Map 16.  A request for the restriction outside Gower Lodge, Gower Road to be placed on the other side of the road agreed.  As were extensions to the corner makings on Old Avenue.

Map 17.  No changes.

Map 18.  No changes.

Map 19.  No changes.

Map 20.  A request for the extension to the restrictions on Brooklands Road to be extended to number 41 accepted.

2016 Parking Map20 Egerton

21 thoughts on “Surrey’s Parking Proposal – Little Change

  1. Why is the inclusion of Dorchester Road being questioned when pretty much every other road behind the high street is included? What do you mean by the comment that residents will have the chance to indicate their wish not to be included at the public consultation. Why is this different from other roads behind the high street? We know already that parking for residents (who don’t have a drive way) has become increasingly difficult since restrictions were added to the surrounding roads. Please can you explain why there was a question mark over Dorchester. Thanks.

    • I think that Surrey did not want to extend the current CPZ and Dorchester Road is an extension. Surrey would not entertain any other extension. There is very little difference between the streets. Some houses in Dorchester Road do have off-street parking but so do a few in Oakdale Road and Holstein Avenue. By including Dorchester Road in the public consultation, it could be removed from the final implementation if the residents did not wish to be included but if was not included in the public consultation the residents would not be able to ask for it to be included in the final implementation.

  2. I am flabbergasted that you have put in proposals for so much residents parking,I know that the residence of Gascoigne, Radnor and Glencoe do not want it. It is an on going expense that some can ill afford, plus what happens if your household have more that 1 or 2 cars! What is the expence of extra cars?Why ,or did you, not strongly object to long term parking time? Surely 8till 10 and 3 till 6 is sufficient to stop the works from parking,which seems to be the argument for driving this proposal(not sure who would serve us if shop workers can not park )
    Free flowing traffic down side and main rds only goes faster,thus making it less safe for cyclists and pedestrians.
    I feel that Surrey sees this,and maybe Elmbridge too as a money spinner.
    The bottom line is that more houses and flats are been built in this area, a loophole in Planning allows developers to build without having to provide parking if within quarter of a mile of a town centre.
    Surrey and Elmbridge would be better of championing the removal of this loophole and building new car parks or putting 2nd storeys on current ones and not relying on the local supermarkets to solve the parking problem.
    We can not just add more and more dwellings without increasing the inferstructure, parking,schools,doctors and hospitals.
    There seems little benefit in residential parking, you are not guaranteed a space outside your own home,which you have no right to now ,all other permit holders can also park in your Rd, you pay £50 per year minimum (no doubt this will increase) , £2.00 everything someone comes to visit, what happens if they stay a week ,is that £14.00 plus extra visitors who visit at the same time! I Zcansee this heading towards £100.00 per mth!

    • To be clear these are Surrey’s proposals not Elmbridge’s. The merits, or otherwise, of controlled parking are hotly contested. Strong views are held by both sides for a variety of reasons.

      Glencoe and Radnor Roads are not in the proposal. Gascoigne Road was included because it is a cul de sac off Dorchester Road and Surrey said that if Dorchester Road becomes part of the CPZ then so must Gascoigne Road. Other streets like Grenside Road and Mount Pleasant were strongly in favour of being in the CPZ but they were excluded by Surrey.

      The timing arrangements for a CPZ are complex. Often minor changes can have a large effect. Surrey’s main objective was to open up the present CPZ to shoppers parking because it felt that during the middle of the day the streets where only half full.

      I have many criticism of Surrey but I do not think Surrey regards this in any way as a money spinner for them. If it were then they would have extended the scheme across the town as a whole.

      The new administration will be reviewing Elmbridge’s planning guidelines and I have made representations to tighten the rules on development without parking provision as to opportunity arises.

      Were would you recommend building a two storey car park in Weybridge?

      • The existing car park, behind the Libray could become 2 storeys high, only offices overlook it, no houses, so hopefully would not affect too many people

      • It’s no wonder this Review has ended up as tantamount to yet another piecemeal effort, rather than the holistic one promised by the new procedures, when on-street and off-street parking are the responsibilities of separate authorities which, at least at the Local Committee meetings I’ve attended, just do not seem to get on with each other!
        There is a pretty strong consensus in the Town that the root cause of the present on-street discontent (Surrey’s problem) is Elmbridge’s woeful disregard of its own responsibility for the provision of off-street parking.
        Elmbridge inaction here simply passes the buck, unfairly in my view, on to Surrey to sort out, which authority is then criticised for not being able to force a quart of vehicles (and growing) into a pint pot-sized volume of residential roads – a finite resource; there’s only so much it can do.
        Several options for additional off-street space exist; another (sunken) level to Churchfields, working with the NHS to add another storey on to the Hospital car park, adding another storey to the Baker Street car park, using some of the investment properties held by the authorities, building up on the existing, rowing club car park (hardly used during the working day – empty when I cycled past yesterday). I’m confident that others could be identified.
        We have been told that “money is not the stumbling block” (after all, it’s Weybridge parking fees that fund the rest of the Borough’s costs in this arena) so it’s about time that the new administration at Elmbridge puts right the failure of the old. Perhaps its new Portfolio Holder for Highways & Transport will be the man who can take the kudos for being the man who “solved” the Weybridge parking problem, but who will also accept responsibility for any failure on his part to at least have commenced on a workable solution during this financical year.
        In the interim (though it would also need to continue in conjunction with any improved off-street provision) why could not a radial CPZ, centred on the High Street/Baker Street junction, and with no LONG-stay provision, have been established, outside of which all on-street parking was free? I’m sure that office and shop workers would not be averse to walking for up to 10 minutes to get to/from work if parking was gratis. Why should residential roads have to continue to act as long-term, free, car parks?
        The aforementioned rowing club car park could accommodate up to 50 cars as it is, and land over the nearer Desbrough Cut bridge could house as many again. Only 100 in total maybe, but that’s 100 cars (probably more than those that will now be dispaced from Dorchester and Gascoigne roads) not clogging up central Weybridge during trading hours.

        • Thank you for your comments. They give some interesting food for thought. You might look again at the comments from the town parking meeting. Suggestions for improvements from others are warmly welcomed too.

  3. Well Surrey certainly didn’t worry about “displaced cars” when they gave permission for the Grotto pub to be replaced with flats, with NO parking, could you point that out…
    Also I understand that permission for 11.flats is now being sought, as if 9 with no parking was not enough…..could you let me know what is happening re this proposal..

    • There certainly appears to be a conflict between Surrey’s policies decisions on new development and parking. The planning application for eleven flats gained permission in April.

  4. Re: Map 8 – As a resident of Belvedere Close I would be interested to know what restrictions were requested by residents and turned down by SCC. It is a small close of 10 houses and I haven’t heard any of my neighbours talking about it.
    I would be grateful for any information.

    • Te side opposite the houses during school pickup times. Surrey said that it was for only a short period of the day and was unenforceable. Again the idea is that it could be dropped if people did not want it but in could not be included if they did later want it.

  5. Holstein Avenue not even short-stay bays?
    It is almost empty during the day; hardly any residents are parking there between 9 and 5. On average 3/4th of the bays are empty. And as it is just behind the High Street, this could be used by people who visit Weybridge and actually bring money into the village.
    Once the building of hotel, cinema and shopping centre in Addlestone is completed there will be competition; let’s keep Weybridge attractive, not just for residents, but also for visitors.

    • I couldn’t agree more re Holstein Avenue. I wonder who it was who requested this exception at the councillors’ meeting, or is it pure conincidence that Cllr. Davis lives there himself?
      Perhaps he will explain on here.

      • The decision to keep Holstein Avenue as residents only and making Gascoigne Road the same was made after the meeting by Surrey. I was surprised when I saw their proposal too. Considering that Surrey spent so much time in the meeting saying that all the streets in the CPZ should be treated the same. The reason perhaps is that these two streets are cul de sacs without an end point turning circle and therefore short stay parkers should not be encouraged.

        Remember that a number of years ago my street was resurfaced shortly after I was elected a borough councillor. I can assure you that had nothing to do with me.

        • Fine. However, your email mentioned that: “A request that there should be no short-stay bays in Holstein Avenue – a cul de sac – was accepted.” Who made that request please?

          • I work on the basis that such meetings work within Chatham House rules. But I can tell you that it wasn’t me.

  6. As a resident of Gascoigne road with one car I would like to have the rules explained in detail.

    PROPOSED PARKING

    MONDAY – SATURDAY 8AM – 6PM PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY.
    Does this mean that only residents of Gascoigne Road can park in Gascoigne Road OR can Residents of Dorchester Road, Elmgrove Road, or any road in Weybridge also park in Gascoigne Road as long as they hold a residents’ parking permit of the road they reside in ?? The cost as I understand will be £50.00 yearly + when friends and family come to visit they have to pay £2.00 each time. Awaiting your reply as I might have further questions.

    • Any person with an Elmbridge “F” resident’s permit will be able to park in Gascoigne Road (Dorchester Road, Elmgrove Road, Holstein Avenue and Oakdale Road).

      The first car costs £50. Visitors to your road will have to pay £2 but they could park for nothing in the other streets if their stay is less than two hours.

    • The proposal is to make that part of the A317 free of parked cars. I fought hard to get that put in place. Believe it or not but Surrey wondered where the displaced cars would be parked!!

      In my view all “A” class roads – as part of our national highway network – should be free of parked cars as a default position.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *