Elmgrove Road

1 November 2014.  At the request of some residents parking proposal two extend the hours of parking in Elmgrove Road  Subject to consultation, Surrey intends to install parking restrictions in the spring.  The consultation ends on Friday 28 November 2014.  Give your comments here.  For further information click here.

The black zigzag lines means the revocation of current restrictions.  Continuous red line means no waiting at any time, red dashed lines means residents’ only or 2 hours parking Mon-Sat, 9:00 to 18:00, blue dashed line means residents’ only parking Mon-Sat, 9:00 to 18:00.  Brown as existing.

Elmgrove

23 February 2014. Surrey has received requests for minor changes to the parking bays – some extensions and some reductions.  Also for Elmgrove Mews residents (45c to 45h Elmgrove Road)  to be included in the local resident’s parking scheme (Holstein zone – scheme F).

3 October 2013 – proposed parking restriction changes.  Surrey proposes the following change: allow residents of Elmgrove Mews (Elmgrove Road) to be eligible to apply for permits for area F (Holstein Avenue) – to allow residents to park near their homes.

20 December 2012. Surrey has made its final decision on parking in Elmgrove Road.  Its original proposals have been watered down.  The Holstein Avenue restrictions “F” will be extended to almost all of Elmgrove Road from 10:00 to 2:00 Monday to Saturday.  A stretch of Elmgrove Road on the south side at the Dorchester Road end will be left unrestricted.  See details below.

27 September.  Weybridge North councillors and the Surrey parking officer met to discuss the results of the latest parking proposals in the ward.  Elmgrove Road presents a problem because the majority of people in the street prefer  residents parking and the majority of people in the area generally do not.

In the situation Ramon Gray and I agreed that the advertised proposals for Elmgrove Road were too extensive and we asked Surrey to come back with more modest suggestions.  It was thought that restrictions would not be imposed at the Dorchester Road end in any case and that probably the restrictions could be limited to two hours either in the morning, say 9:00 to 11:00, or the afternoon (15:00 to 17:00) or even one hour in the morning (9:00-10:00) and one hour in the afternoon (16:00-17:00).

Feedback would be welcome.  It was thought that the hours could be extended next time if these measures were insufficient.   Any dropped kerbs marked with yellow lines need not be applied.

Elmgrove Road north Elmgrove Road south

10 thoughts on “Elmgrove Road

  1. Although the minority in Elmgrove Road may get some relief, most writers on the site seem to be somewhat dissatisfied with the outcome.
    The surrounding area will now become completely intolerable as the problem will now be compacted into fewer streets of Oakdale Road, Dorchester Road, Mount Pleasant, The Crescent, Wey Road and Portmore Park Road (also fast becoming a very dangerous area during working hours as workers are increasingly parking on the bends near the church and school end).

    One point I would like to make is that it’s about time Waitrose started taking their community responsibilities on board. The recent store upgrades and the inconvenience they have (unapologetically) caused locally showed an apparent and total the lack of concern for the local community. As a major apart of the parking problem is caused by their staff parking in the surrounding streets late into the evenings it is high time they did something to contribute to working through these issues. (After all they have a multi-story car park of their own that is pretty much empty after 4pm). When I spoke to Waitrose Management on this their reaction again showed a complete lack of concern. (Although clearly they are getting a huge amount of complaints from local residents they have made it equally clear they are not prepared to discuss the matter).

    As I have said before I see this decision as yet another example of Elmbridge Council’s poor ability to consult, plan and policy make, and a cynical “divide and conquer” move to get the whole area paying to park cars near their homes. I stand by my original comments that the parking restriction scheme is a badly conceived plan and just about money for the council. Elmgrove Road will now be paying for the problem we have now (in my view unlikely to be resolved by this decision), and those that don’t pay have the penalty of increased problems. Can I assume there is a right of appeal ? Did the council even discuss the issues with local businesses? (Waitrose in particular). Were there any alternative schemes discussed?

    It does seem that the real problem is workers more than shoppers and that the council is not addressing the real issue – what is the answer for the High Street workers? – They pay and fill the shoppers’ car parks and shoppers don’t come to Weybridge to shop? More parking is needed (or existing, needs to be better used) – not less.

    • I think the important point here is that on-street parking is run by Surrey County Council, as the highway authority, not Elmbridge Borough Council. I have consulted widely in the streets affected by the proposals from Surrey. I have met with many local residents and listened to your views. I am aware that some people – even next door neighbours – have directly opposing views on parking in their locality. With this information gleaned, I proposed many options to Surrey County Council – they were ignored. Surrey’s proposals lack subtlety. It is possible that Surrey did not follow the appropriate process in its decision making. I am investigating this.

      Incidentally, Waitrose car park has three levels. The top level is leased by the landlord for use by the businesses above Waitrose, the ground and middle levels are leased from the landlord by Waitrose and, as far as I am aware, Waitrose offers the its floors to its customers and not its staff.

  2. Dear Andrew

    Benefiting from fully restricted parking (FRP) as you currently do on Holstein Avenue can you explain why you do not support this for residents on Elmgrove Road? As Elmgrove Road is now, Holstein Avenue was one of the worst affected roads for non-residents parking and logically therefore there is no reason to view Elmgrove Road any differently to Holstein Avenue. So I’m curious as to why you seem unsupportive of the introduction of FRP on Elmgrove Road?

    Furthermore, your comment: ‘”the majority of people in Elmgrove prefer residents parking yet the majority of people in the local area do not” does not provide a substantive argument against introducing FRP on Elmgrove Road because there is a chronic problem with parking on this road due to it’s proximity to the high street and as you move to roads further from the high street the problem (of non-resident parking) becomes less. Add to this the availability of more off-street parking it is not unsuprising that support for FRP falls.

    FRP should logically be used on those roads that are worst affected by non-residents parking, as it has been on Holstein and other local roads closest to the high street. A broader scheme, based on the different needs of the broader local area and appropriate in-street support, could be watered down and introduced accordingly as you navigate further from the high street/Waitrose, being the epicenter and cause of the problem.

    • I do not benefit from the all-day residents parking in Holstein Avenue – an understandable mistake which is made by a number of people – you are not alone.

      For over twenty years, I have been on record for being against the encroachment of residents onto the Queen’s highway. Since time out of mind we have had the freedom to travel along the Queen’s highway as long as we do not cause obstruction or leave our property on it.

      Parking our cars on the highway runs against this well-worn principle. Of course, when our Victorian houses were built they had no idea that each householder would have, perhaps, two cars. Had they known they would have built the houses in such a way that the cars could be parked off the highway.

      Unfortunately, the Victorians could not see that far in the future – nor can we. Who is to say that the idea of people owning two large metal boxes and leaving them on the highway will not be seen as rather quaint in the not-to-distant future?

      But we are in the here and now. There are problems that have to be resolved. I am simply looking for a solution that goes the longest way to satisfying the widest number of people whilst at the same time has the greatest sense of justice to it.

      Holstein Avenue’s all-day residents-only parking is unjust. We should not have the expectation that we can park our car on the highway outside our house, we should think of it as more of a privilege.

      Think about it, there are plenty of people in Elmgrove Road who do not own a car. What if they all decided to buy one? Forget about the non-residents – there is not enough space in Elmgrove Road for all the residents to park their cars if they all had one.

      I view residents-only parking as a temporary palliative – something that we reluctantly have to introduce because we know no better – there are real solutions out there but we, as yet, do not have the imagination to grasp them.

  3. Will either you, Andrew Davis, (or Ramon Gray) please reply to this post on the reasons for recommending that the restrictions in Elmgrove are watered down from the current restrictions in Holstein. I would be particularly interested in why an all day restriction supported by you for Holstein, where you live, should not simply be extended to Elmgrove.

    I would also like to know why it is important for you to consolidate comment from the area, while at the same time ignoring the fact that the SCC parking team made it extremely clear that a strong consensus of opinion in any particular road will be considered significant for that road. As you and Ramon are elected to represent our views, I think it is important you attempt to do so, when within the provided road by road framework.

    • I did not support the Holstein Avenue resident parking scheme but I recognise that everyone else in the street did and so acted accordingly.

  4. Andrew, given that you appear to have recommended that a full residents parking scheme not be introduced in Elmgrove Road, will you be recommending in the 2013 review that the full scheme in Holstein Avenue (where you live) that was introduced in 2012, be scaled back to match your propoals for Elmgrove Road? It is this scheme in Holstein that has exacerbated the problem in Elmgrove, Oakdale, The Crescent, etc.

    As many of us have pointed out to you Andrew, limiting parking for an hour or two in the morning or evening will not have any significant effect on the numbers of Waitrose employees and other shift workers parking in the road for extended periods during the day. This is only going to get worse if the Morrisons development goes ahead.

    What may work is the “two hours parking, no return in two hours for non-residents” that you have suggested in the past.

    Just to be clear to everyone, I am a resident of Elmgrove Road.

Leave a Reply

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