I am appalled to read the comments of The Council's Sustainable Transport Officer (see Section 156 of The Plans List) RE planning application BH2009/00847 to be put before The Planning Committe at their meeting at Hove Town Hall from 2pm on Wednesday 22nd July.
I have to query the logic in The Council's Sustainable Transport Officer telling Kate Brocklebank, (The Case Officer for application BH2009/00847), that there is room for more on-street parking in Round Hill and 400m away (e.g. Springfield Road) while at the same time, The Council's Highways Department is trying to promote a Residents' Parking Scheme throughout the London Road area.
Brighton and Hove City Council has a very good Sustainability Team, though I do feel there needs to be more discussion across Council departments i.e. with their colleagues in Transport and The Highways Department.
The leaflet we got for the London Road Residents Parking Scheme Public Consultation shows us pavement parking in Wakefield Road and parking around junctions in neighbouring areas.
However, in relation to application BH2009/00847, the Sustainable Transport Officer endorses a "mid-week 12 noon / 8 pm study" which
- fails to measure the demand for parking at peak periods i.e. weekends
- fails to log instances of dangerous and anti-social parking alongside the safe empty parking spaces it identifies at non-peak times.
I have just had a leaflet through my door from campaigners who want to stop the CPZ. Two of the bullet points read:
- 30% less parking space available in area as Double Yellow lines everywhere seal-off large stretches of road
- Causes constant problem for houses / flats / landlords / tenants/ students / businesses with multiple-occupants & for visitors.
Yet, Brighton and Hove City Council's Sustainable Transport Officer says (see Section 156 of The Plans List):
"There is sufficient space available within what is defined by best practice as a reasonable walking distance (400m) to easily accommodate the demand for parking the site would create. This is also the case for a walking distance of 100m from the site...No additional information has been provided that would refute the content of the survey work and it was drafted to the best practice in terms of what is deemed as an acceptable walking distance and what is defined as safe and legal parking space."
Obviously, the Sustainable Transport Officer does not read letters of comment or The Round Hill Society's website.
Section 146 of The Plans List records the Sustainable Transport Officer's endorsement of a Highways Authority policy, which makes it farcical for the same department to be promoting a CPZ.
Apparently, providing the material impact of a development proposal does not increase vehicle movements through a junction affecting a classified road by 5%, The Highways Authority feels that increasing the pressure on on-street parking is OK.
With this policy, 20 planning permissions of developments reduced in scale so that each only has a 4.9% impact, could practically double the on-street parking in Round Hill or places 400m away if that is where all the vehicles have to go.
The Highways Department is also guided in its judgements by accident stats. Not all collisions are serious enough to be recorded. Recording them does not help somebody pushing a buggey whose pedestrian access is blocked or a partially-sighted person who gives up trying to squeeze between parked cars.
The RNIB reports a problem of social exclusion from our streets. This involves housebound residents who find the first and last legs (between home and bus stop) of any journey too much of an obstacle to have the confidence to take. This also affects the elderly and contributes to the problem of obesity among children who are taken everywhere within metal motorised containers for safety reasons.
As somebody who sees the needs for a CPZ which considers everybody fairly (space is a finite resource), I am quite appalled that we have a Sustainable Transport Officer, who does not deserve the title of the job, being mainly preoccupied with access for cars emerging from junctions.
Who in transport on the Council is representing walkers, cyclists, the visually impaired, people with buggies and anybody who is actually willing to try to get about sustainably?
Other duties of the Sustainable Transport Officer probably involve promoting Car Free Day.
Supporting arguments for allowing increases in on-street parking while promoting 'CPZs and Car Free Days' is a brief for Mr Jekyll and Mr Hyde and not somebody who should be influencing planning in Round Hill or any community 400m away.
Ted Power
Conservation Area Advisory Group representative for Round Hill
and Committee member of The Round Hill Society:
See The Round Hill Society website for more information
