Parking Consultation

Surrey Highways' parking proposals for Thames Ditton of March 2010

High Street parking

Update 3 August 2010

It seems that the process has stalled again.

By the second week of June Surrey Highways officers acknowledged that any suggestion of pay and display meters on the High Street would be extremely contentious. It was confirmed that a full consultation would be undertaken which would provide those affected with an opportunity to communicate their concerns to Surrey County Council. A Traffic Regulation Order for the proposed restrictions, at that time with the Legal Dept., would be advertised. Consultation was expected to occur in late June/early July 2010.

However, by the end of June it was averred that there was no funding for any parking controls. A SCC report on overall policy in the county was awaited but under political direction of the Conservative cabinet portfolio holder the probability was that "any new controls must be funded from on street parking fees". Therefore the Thames Ditton consultation was postponed sine die lest it should "raise expectations that might not be met in the short term."

Comment: That the process will again be delayed is no surprise to any who have followed the village traffic and parking saga for the past forty years (see 'Background' below). Over the last eighteen months it has become increasingly clear that councils hope to raise revenue from new parking controls in borough and county. It is highly unlikely that under the current Administrations any scheme will be implemented which does not raise revenue. There is absolutely no guarantee that revenue generated 'to fund the proposals' would in future be limited to that purpose. Council Tax may be capped or promised (subject to conditions) to remain at zero: but there is no such cap on other means of raising revenue from citizens with few or no alternatives.

Introduction: <<< updated 16 March >>>

Surrey Highways officers have completed their review of the last parking consultation, have visited the area for themselves on more than one occasion and have drawn up proposals. We are grateful for an advance look at them, thanks to our councillor, Peter Hickman. The proposals have now (1 March) passed through the Area Local Committee. There will be a period of public consultation for 28 days planned to begin in June 2010. (This was to have been in April, but the elections are said by SCC to be holding things up). It is at that point that residents will be able to put their final views. There is little point in writing to Surrey before that period, when we will get our chance: but please by all means look at the proposals, read the background below, and post your views for all to see in our forum here

The results of the consultation will be collated and the final scheme for implementation will take them into account. Authority for any consequential changes is to be delegated to the Head of Parking Services, the Chairman of the Area Local Committee and the local County Councillor (Peter). If diverse opinions are expressed then the general consensus should be taken, with Peter as your County Councillor acting as a facilitator for consensus.

The proposals:

The proposals are fairly minimalist. See the background below for the reasons. They consist of:

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.

_______________________________________