Parking Proposals

Parking: Update 22 November 2011

1. The pay-and-display fiasco reverberated through other boroughs and contributed to a coup in the Surrey county leadership in September. New county Leader David Hodge immediately announced the abandonment of the pay-and-display plans thoughout the county. What happens to the contract for £2million of taxpayers' money, which was negotiated before the putative approval of the policy was completed, is not known.

2. We still expect Surrey to implement the other measures agreed in Weston Green and Thames Ditton. Notable among these are:

3. Despite our success in getting the car park charges for long-stay parkers halved, Ashley Road car park is rarely more than one-third full as all-day parkers use the free High Street rather than the car park. This is not a new problem and the arguments over what should be done have proved intractable and at times bitterly divisive in the community, with everyone holding a strong - but different - view. Opinion on the Residents' Association Executive is also divided.

With the corpse of pay-and-display now buried (but not impossible that it may be resurrected in future), there are moves to re-open the question of introducing restricted but free parking bays in the High Street, for short-term shopper parking. Views on that have also differed, but before Surrey messed things up by insisting on pay-and-display we seemed to have reached a general agreement that bays along the lines of those at Winter's Bridge might be acceptable in the High Street. The bays at Winter's Bridge are not pay-and-display, therefore hard for wardens to enforce the short term restriction, but they seem to work well on what amounts to an honour system. At our Open Meeting of 8 November, Cllr Ruth Lyon proposed to reopen the question of similar restricted bays for the High Street and the meeting agreed that together with Andrew Roberts (Highways Convenor for the Association), Honsec Tricia Bland and county Cllr Peter Hickman, she would consult retailers in the first instance. Hitherto, many of the retailers have in fact been opposed to restricted bays (particularly those who often need to park their own vehicles near their shops). If they now agree, then other High Street businesses and residents will of course be consulted.

Factors to be considered: You may well be weary of this subject, but residents and businesses with concerns in the matter are advised to make their views known - and copied to this forum thread on the subject. Let's hope that the process proceeds fairly and without acrimony.

Those Parking Proposals: update 7 June 2011

High Street pay and display

1. There were 330 objections overall to the proposed pay and display bays in the High Street. Surrey have not provided more detailed statistics in response to a FOI request. Alone of the proposed pay and display targets in Surrey, we won the argument against implementation here. The reason finally adopted by the Surrey Cabinet was that the business case made no sense in terms of expense versus predicted revenue. However, the Cabinet has put down a marker to review the situation in 6-12 months' time in the light of implementation elsewhere. We cannot be complacent.

2. The many other proposals, for yellow lines at some well-known choke points in Thames Ditton and Weston Green; for unmetered bays in Summer Road, and for partial curfew parking in Basingfield Road, are now being considered by officials and will be put imminently to the Chair and Vice Chair of the Local Area Committee for Elmbridge along with our councillor, Peter Hickman. Of those proposals, the only ones to attract a signficant number of objections concern double yellow lines in and near the High Street, Thames Ditton.

3. We won the battle, over two years long, to get longer-term charges in Ashley Road car park restored to more sensible levels (which still represent about a 25% increase over those of 2008). To keep these gains and free up spaces in the High Street for passing shoppers, please now use the car park. From 6 June rates are:

Monday to Friday, 10-6pm

Up to 30 minutes 10p
Up to 1 hour 20p
Up to 2 hours 40p
Up to 3 hours 70pv Up to 4 hours £1
Over 4 hours and all day £2
No charge Saturday and Sunday, Public or Bank Holidays

SEASON TICKET BARGAIN!

Consider purchasing an annual season ticket, NOW £202 – DOWN from £405.
Quarterly season tickets NOW £60 – DOWN from £112.

Surrey Highways' parking orders for Thames Ditton of March 2011

The background to the parking consultations for Thames Ditton is given lower down this page. Surrey County Council have now (March 2011) published parking orders for a number of planned changes to road markings and parking provisions in Thames Ditton and Weston Green. They coincide with other changes in different areas of Elmbridge. They also coincide with a county-wide policy of imposing pay-and-display. The notice of the Orders, which is not the most reader-friendly of documents, is available to download here. Links to the documents which show drawings and details of the parking modifications are given in the section below. Surrey have now said there will be no mailshot to residents living in the affected roads.

The process is not, as we had earlier been led to believe, one where Surrey will implement each intended change only where a majority of residents support it. It is the other way round: Surrey will implement each change unless there is a signficant body of objectors. Please note that in this process there is no question of Surrey adding different proposals or extending the ones published. We are advised that, if there are significant numbers of objectors, they may scale down or abandon individual changes provided for in the orders.

Residents should ensure that they look at ALL the detailed proposals which may affect them, and tell Surrey directly and unequivocally whether they reject or accept all or any them. Responses must give grounds for objection and be filed before 1 April 2011 in writing to:

J Isaac, Assistant Director Operations, Highways and Countryside
Surrey County Council Room 308A
County Hall
Penrhyn Road
Kingston upon Thames KT1 2DY

or via www.surreycc.gov.uk/parking/elmbridge or email to parking@surreycc.gov.uk

It is not easy to find the material on Surrey's website, which costs taxpayers almost half a million pounds a year. They appear to be using SurveyMonkey to be collecting comments here But better to write on paper or to email your comments, which must include your name and address, the specific proposal you object to (or support), and a brief statement of the nature of your objection to it.

The Executive of the Thames Ditton & Weston Green Residents' Association seek the support of residents in objecting to one important proposal. This is the provision of eight pay-and-display bays in Thames Ditton High Street. It is with regret that we recommend residents to reject this particular proposal. The bays were conceived as a convenience for short-stay shoppers, in support of our local retailers. The intention was that there would be no pay-and-display there, and that the bays would be as for the very successful, un-metered bays at Winter's Bridge. Surrey however are determined that if those eight bays are installed in the High Street, they will be pay-and-display. This means that not only do we lose eight parking spaces that are at present unrestricted, but that there will be less convenience to passing short-stay shoppers than before: they would now have to buy a ticket and return to their car before popping into a nearby shop for five minutes. Moreover, we are concerned to avoid the unsightliness and inconvenience of posts and machines on the narrow pavements of the High Street.

Further considerations are: that even if initially there is a low charge or even a free 30 minutes, the incovenience remains and there is nothing to prevent a future hike in charges without consultation, as happened with Elmbridge doubling car-park charges two years ago. And that if the village accepts some pay-and-display bays in the High Street, more such measures will follow as night follows day. The Council is seeking to raise revenue, and most of the charges will be swallowed up in enforcement: that is, we will be paying to park where we freely park at present, simply to pay traffic wardens to check that we are paying to park.

If you agree, we ask you specifically to reject the eight pay-and-display bays in Thames Ditton High Street, citing loss of eight unrestricted parking spaces, inconvenience to passing trade of ticketing; unwelcome appearance of pay and display machines in narrow street of Conservation Area. Thank you.

Downloadable drawings of the plans

Each file is a pdf file of about 1Mb:

Thames Ditton - 1

Thames Ditton and Long Ditton - 2 Thames Ditton and Long Ditton - 3 Esher - 1 Esher - 2

Background:

Roads, traffic and parking have been major, often intractable, issues for at least four decades. Faced with lorries and commuters cutting through Thames Ditton to avoid the Silly isles, in 1970 a traffic census was mounted by volunteers but the authorities seemed more concerned with clearing the roads for more through traffic than in reducing it. A Surrey proposal to put a connecting road from Portsmouth Road to Station Road, demolishing the George and Dragon, was seen off. There followed a series of battles to get Surrey to implement the 1973 Heavy Commercial Vehicles Act by restricting lorries over three tons from the Thames Ditton 'triangle' - and also to press businesses in the Woodlands in Weston Green to restrict voluntarily the movement of HGVs to one agreed route. Finally, in August 1980 an order was made to ban heavy lorries from passing the railway arches at Thames Ditton station. Further operations were mounted to monitor, witness, photograph and report to the police the many lorries whose drivers ignored it.

Parking has also been a long-running issue. In 1971 Ashley Rd car park was established and a year later there were proposals to remove cars parked against the wall of the Home of Compassion, which had caused accidents and one fatality. In 1974 the Association resisted draconian police action to ticket cars parked along the High Street, noting that: "...a degree of parking in the High St., by slowing down and discouraging through traffic, contributes to its safety.....one of the great benefits of the village both to customers and to shopkeepers is that it is still possible to briefly park and shop." The problem of all-day parkers became increasingly serious throughout the 1980s: there was a colourful leaflet campaign to get them to use the car park, with support from local shopkeepers and High St residents who contributed campaign expenses.

In 1992 the Islanders petitioned for speed humps in Summer Road; they even raised £600 which would pay for one hump! The Association asked Elmbridge to look at traffic calming measures, and also to prevent commuter parking in Basingfield Rd and in Lower Green Rd., Weston Green. Elmbridge carried out a traffic study, but action was deferred while Surrey & Elmbridge considered the issue of parking enforcement following decriminalisation of parking offences. After three years of study, debate and public consultation, controversial speed bumps were installed in 2001, and the 20mph zone in 2003, with a dramatic reduction in accidents. An amended parking scheme, however, ran into difficulties. In Weston Green, proposals to restrict parking near Esher station led to such a wide area being concerned about displacement of parked cars that a scheme was judged unworkable. In Thames Ditton any scheme not only had to be self-financing but needed to take into account the interests of all residents, including the Islanders, who kept their cars in the area. Moreover, responsibility for Highways was now taken on by Surrey from Elmbridge, and the Association observed that it was "extremely difficult for our councillors and officers to get access to Surrey's Highways department." With a Residents' Association County Councillor, Peter Hickman, elected for the first time in 2005, parking was back on the agenda. The Association carried out a further major exercise to consult residents in 2006-2007, and after reconnaissance work by Surrey and extensive official public consultation, the formulation of a parking scheme again ran into difficulties. Residents' interests as well as those of retail and other businesses, commuters to and from Thames Ditton, office workers, and parents using cars for the school run, were too often competing and incompatible. The budget and the allotted time was exhausted before conclusion.

What were the conflicts in the 2006/2008 consultations?

One way system
A few residents and one senior SCC official pushed the idea of a one-way system from the Fountain Roundabout to Station Road. The traders were opposed, projecting that this would halve passing trade. High Street residents were largely opposed. There were fears that a smooth passage would serve only to increase speeds and traffic volume in the High Street. Speed bumps and other physical traffic-calming measures do not enjoy universal support.

Extensive Residents' parking
Many residents supported the idea of residents' parking until they realised that residents with garages or off-road parking for two cars would not qualify. There was also concern that imposing residents' parking restrictions in some roads would simply displace the problem to other roads, which then wanted the same: leading to a forest of regulation posts and markings and signs on each restricted parking bay in the whole village. Moreover, as the size of bay for one car is regulated, and quite large, there would be much less parking available in the village overall than before the scheme.

Businesses, who pay higher rates and occupy roughly half of the premises along the High Street, were also concerned that they would have no parking while High Street residents had such privileges.

The situation of the Islanders was also of concern. The final nail in the coffin of widespread residents/curfew parking in the whole High Street, already problematic, was that SCC officials stated that to be included in the final official consultation, legally households had to be contiguous with the area concerned: the Islanders, across the bridge, were not. (It was at this point that the budget ran out and the whole scheme finally ground to a halt in early 2008).

Residents' parking schemes are quite costly and have to be administered. Some feared (with justification) that before too long a residents' parking scheme would be used by the councils to raise revenue, not just to be self-financing: and there would be no rolling back such a scheme once established.

Enforcement
SCC would implement a scheme only if it were self financing and, therefore, enforceable (revenue from fines and tickets goes towards financing parking control schemes). Equally, a scheme involving enforcement would have to be enforceable at a uniform time of day across the village, to make it worthwhile for a warden to visit during a particular period of the day.

What were the points of broad agreement?
  • There was widespread agreement that to prevent obstructive parking round a small number of junctions or choke-points, some yellow lines would be necessary.
  • There was general agreement that a priority aim would be to provide some shopper parking to support our small retailers on whom the life and character of the High Street partly depends.
  • There was general agreement that the long line of parked cars along Watts Road should be broken up somewhat to enable passing points.
  • There was general agreement that the parking needs of shoppers, residents and businesses should take priority over those of commuters from the station.
  • There was considerable agreement that the situation of Basingfield Road residents and of the upper end of Speer Road was of a different order of difficulty from other areas (station commuters, school runs, access for emergency vehicles down the cul-de-sac of Basingfield Road)

What were the aims of the Residents' Association executive?

The overriding aim was to see whether something could be done to improve the situation, rather than 'doing nothing.' Residents wanted this. Over the past decade and during the recent consultations there were divergent views on the executive about solutions, just as there were among villagers in general. Overall, one priority was to support the small shops with passing trade. Another was to prevent the kind of obstructive parking that impedes the bus routes, access for refuse lorries and emergency services. Another was to avoid a return to the bad old days when unrestricted traffic flow led to the village centre being used as a rat-run or through route, especially by lorries. And in considering the desires of residents, that the interests of one group of residents should not disadvantage another. That in pursuing ideas for parking restrictions we should not end up with a forest of signs, posts and markings especially in the conservation area. Nor that we should end up with significantly less parking overall than exists at present.

_______________________________________