Review of On-Street Parking - Surrey · the importance of on-street parking controls in the...

Review of On-Street Parking

Guildford Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Guildford Borough Council

________________________________

5 June 2018

Page 89

Foreword________________________________________

This working group was set up to look solely at parking pressures in the Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs - on street parking) in specific areas of Guildford. It focussed its attention only on these areas and had nothing to do with GBC’s parking strategy for car parks in Guildford and its associated income generation.

Residents in Guildford Town Centre (especially A, B, C (North) and D zones) are under severe pressure and are understandably feeling very frustrated by the lack of available spaces to park their vehicles. It is fair to say that the parking pressures have become more intense after 18:00 hours and at weekends, particularly on Sundays.

This working group concentrated on alleviating these pressures by reviewing the times and days of enforcement; this is detailed in our report. It is also worth mentioning that over the past twenty or so years, most local residents will have witnessed how the many changes in the retail and entertainment sector – with extended opening hours in the evening and Sundays becoming ‘just another shopping day’ – have impacted upon the CPZ zones. Two examples are the areas around Millmead and G Live, wherethe change of times / days of enforcement have been welcomed by nearby residents.

In carrying out this work, the Group drew on support, advice and technical input from officers working in Parking and I would like to record the gratitude of the Group to all officers who supported us in our task. I would also like to express my thanks to the members of the Group for their assistance and their contributions to our discussions.

Councillor David Goodwin

Chair of the On-Street Parking Task Group

Page 90

Contents

Foreword________________________________________

1. Introduction________________________________________ 1

Background 1

Reasons for the review 1

2. Context________________________________________ 2

3. Process________________________________________ 4

4. Findings and proposals ____________________________________ 4

Sunday and evening parking controls 5

On-street pay and display 5

Pressure on residents' permit parking 6

Saturday parking controls 7

Visitor permit parking 8

Enforcement 8

Permit fees 8

Outside the CPZ 8

5. Recommendations ____________________________________ 9

6. Conclusion ______________________________________ 9

Appendices 10

Glossary of types of on-street parking bay in Guildford

Dual use bays: pay and display & permit holders. Free time limited bays: free parking for a limited time, with motorists not allowed to

return to the same parking place within a certain time. Permit parking bays: holders of valid permits only. Shared use bays: free time limited & permit holders.

Page 91

1

1. Introduction________________________________________

Background

1.1 In July 2017, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee approved a proposal to investigate on-street parking. In September 2017, the Committee agreed the terms of reference for the investigation (within the Scoping Document, attached at Appendix 2).

1.2 The Overview and Scrutiny Committee determined that given the detail surrounding the various issues and options for improvement the review was best progressed through the in-depth approach of a task and finish group.

1.3 The Overview and Scrutiny Committee identified two key issues for the task group to address:

How to improve on-street parking to provide a better overall facility for residents?

How to improve on-street parking enforcement to provide a greater deterrent?

1.4 The original, overarching objectives for the task group’s investigation were fourfold:

Consider current pressures on residents’ parking in Guildford town centre and elsewhere.

Consider permit eligibility, costs, hours of restriction, dual purpose bays, zone structurewithin the existing Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ), and parking service staffing levels.Also, consider residents' need for parking for visitors, carers, and trades people (includingalternative options to the current scratch card permit scheme).

Consider enforcement and how it can help improve the situation.

Consider potential improvements looking at the benefits and disadvantages of each.

1.5 The task group membership remained unchanged throughout the review and comprises:

Councillor Alex Chesterfield Councillor David Goodwin (Chair) Councillor Angela Gunning Councillor Tony Philips Councillor Mike Piper

1.6 The following officers supported the group during its investigations:

James Dearling – Scrutiny Manager Andy Harkin – former On-Street Parking Co-ordinator (current Parking Manager) Kevin McKee – former Parking Services Manager

Reasons for the review

1.7 Overview and Scrutiny Councillors identified parking as a key concern for many residents, particularly in the town centre. The decision to undertake the Overview and Scrutiny review was prompted primarily by Councillors’ concerns to improve on-street parking for the Borough’s residents.

1.8 On-street parking controls can improve the availability of parking for residents, but careful consideration is often necessary as restrictions that benefit some residents may disadvantage others, including visitors and shoppers.

1.9 The Council conducts regular reviews of the parking restrictions in the Borough, but such reviews are usually in response to specific requests. Both officers and Overview and Scrutiny Councillors

Page 92

2

felt it would be beneficial and timely to undertake a more rounded review of the current system of on-street parking. The review utilised the four broad objectives outlined above to help develop recommendations for improvement.

2. Context________________________________________

2.1 Before considering the findings and recommendations of the task group’s study, a discussion of the importance of on-street parking controls in the Guildford context is necessary, including brief reference to the parking strategies and policies framework and to the national guidance that were consulted in the group’s review.

2.2 Responsibility for the management of on-street parking lies with the relevant traffic authority; this means that, aside from major trunk roads, responsibility for parking on the roads in the Borough lies with the highway authority (Surrey County Council).

2.3 Since 2004, Guildford Borough Council has acted on Surrey County Council’s behalf to manage on-street parking within the Borough. In 2011, Guildford Borough Council took over the enforcement responsibilities in the Borough of Waverley. Surrey County Council’s Local Committee for each respective borough considers changes to the parking arrangements. The agreement that facilitates Guildford Borough Council’s involvement in on-street parking management and enforcement was renewed recently.1

2.4 Parking policies should be integral to transport strategy within a local authority area. Moreover, local parking policies should aim to tackle congestion and change travel behaviour.2 The ability of local authorities to control on-street parking, including charging, is a powerful traffic management tool. As Guildford’s parking strategy notes, ‘Whenever a car moves it has to go from one parking space to another, so providing and controlling parking spaces has a strong influence on traffic movements into the town and Borough.’3

2.5 National statutory guidance advises that parking policies should be designed with attention to:

managing the traffic network to ensure the expeditious movement of traffic, includingpedestrians and cyclists [the network management duty];

improving road safety;

improving the local environment;

improving the quality and accessibility of public transport;

meeting the needs of disabled people; and

managing the competing demands for kerb space [from residents; businesses; shops;visitors; pedestrians; delivery vehicles; buses, taxis, private hire vehicles and coaches;cars; bicycles; and motorcycles].4

2.6 Guildford’s parking strategy selects three factors as fundamental to successful parking management:

1 A new five-year agreement commenced in April 2018. Report to Guildford Borough Council Executive,

Management of On Street Parking, 20 February 2018. 2 Department for Transport, Traffic Management Act 2004, Operational Guidance to Local Authorities: Parking

Policy and Enforcement, 2015 [withdrawn 28 March 2018], p.8. Department for Transport, Traffic Management Act 2004, The Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance to Local Authorities on the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions, 2016, p.7. 3

Guildford Borough Council, A Sustainable Parking Strategy for Guildford, 2016, p.2. 4 Department for Transport, Traffic Management Act 2004, Operational Guidance, p.11-12. Department for

Transport, Traffic Management Act 2004, Statutory Guidance, p.7.

Page 93

3

Regeneration – using parking measures to support town centre regeneration.

Restraint – using parking controls as a means of restraining / managing traffic, improvingenvironmental quality, and / or to encourage the use of sustainable transport modes.

Revenue – securing sufficient revenue to cover costs of providing car parking and usingany surplus revenue to fund other important services.

The strategy cautions that, ‘the pursuit of one of these factors alone will potentially result in the other two being compromised.’5

2.7 Guildford’s parking strategy is designed to fit with other plans and strategies pursued by Guildford Borough Council and Surrey County Council. For example, Surrey County Council’s parking strategy is intended to help shape, manage and deliver the county council’s vision for parking: ‘Provide parking where appropriate, control parking where necessary.’ The county council’s parking strategy has four objectives underpinning its vision:

Reduce congestion caused by parked vehicles

Make best use of the parking space available

Enforce parking regulations fairly and efficiently

Provide appropriate parking where needed6

2.8 Effective management of parking is important to Guildford. Car ownership levels in Guildford (and Surrey) are considerably higher than in England as a whole. Only 13.9 per cent of Guildford households have no car available to them, while 46.2 per cent have 2 or more cars. There is an average of 1.5 cars per household in Guildford. The comparable figures for England are 25.8 per cent, 32 per cent, and 1.16 cars respectively. For Surrey, the respective figures are 13.1 per cent, 46.4 per cent, and 1.51 cars.7

2.9 Guildford is the county town and a significant economic hub for Surrey but suffers from traffic congestion. Indeed, Guildford town has been identified as one of the worst congested towns and cities in the UK, ranked by INRIX research as 7th worst for 2017.8

2.10 The surpluses generated from the management of on-street (and off-street) parking by local authorities, make media headlines and perhaps reinforces the impression that parking charges are viewed by councils as a fiscal measure or set with a financial objective. Guildford has been publicised by the RAC Foundation as one of the top ten councils (outside London) to benefit the most from its off and on-street parking income.9 The latest annual parking report for Guildford shows the on-street parking account producing an actual net income of £594,889 for 2016-17 (down from £731,484 for 2015-1610) and a projected net income of £613,071 for 2017-18. In

5 Guildford Borough Council, A Sustainable Parking Strategy for Guildford, 2016, p.2.

6 Surrey County Council, Surrey Transport Plan: Parking Strategy, April 2011, p.i.

7 Office for National Statistics, 2011 Census (available at www.surreyi.gov.uk).

8 See www.inrix.com/scorecard. (INRIX research ranked Guildford as 6th worst for congestion in the UK in 2016.)

9 For 2016-17 figures:

https://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/Local_Authority_Parking_Operations_Revenue_Outturn_for_England_2016-17_listed_by_size_of_surplus_and_alphabetically.pdf 10

In relation to this reduction, the Council’s Parking Business Plan report for 2018 noted that, ‘There continues to be a decline in the usage of on street parking pay and display. There could be a number of reasons for this. On street parking pay and display is time limited and supports shorter visits to the town centre. These types of visit are the most susceptible to road conditions with people being discouraged if they are likely to expect delays.’ In addition, the group was advised that without looking at on-street income and usage details on a street-by-street it would be difficult to pinpoint the reasons for decline.

Page 94

http://www.inrix.com/scorecard

https://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/Local_Authority_Parking_Operations_Revenue_Outturn_for_England_2016-17_listed_by_size_of_surplus_and_alphabetically.pdf

https://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/Local_Authority_Parking_Operations_Revenue_Outturn_for_England_2016-17_listed_by_size_of_surplus_and_alphabetically.pdf

4

Guildford, the surpluses generated from on-street parking have been used to fund the park and ride services, which in 2016-17 cost £667,289 to provide.11

2.11 Undoubtedly, there is a risk that Surrey County Council and Guildford Borough Council could be

seen as using the on-street parking account to budget for a significant surplus to fund the Borough’s park and ride schemes. While the statutory guidance indicates it is good governance to forecast revenue and expenditure from parking enforcement, it also affirms that the Road Traffic Regulation Act is not a revenue raising Act.12

3. Process________________________________________

3.1 The task group met formally on five occasions to gather and evaluate evidence and formulate its

recommendations. The notes of these five meetings are attached as Appendix 1 to this report. 3.2 Group members discussed consulting the public as part of their review but, on balance, decided

against given that there would be a statutory consultation process undertaken as part of any proposals for making or amending a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). In addition, the group was advised that information on issues such as proposed Sunday restrictions and evening on-street parking controls could be provided from recent surveys. (Consultation results are included at Appendices 7 and 8.13)

3.3 During the course of its considerations the group obtained oral evidence from Council officers,

including an experienced Civil Enforcement Officer. 3.4 Details of the residents’ parking scheme in Guildford town were central to the group’s review. A

map denoting the Controlled Parking Zone, which is divided into ten catchment areas labelled A to J, is attached as Appendix 9.

3.5 As indicated above, the group gathered written material on the current policy context and

considered relevant legislation and guidance. In addition, a benchmarking exercise was undertaken to compare different parking management and enforcement approaches, particularly residents’ parking schemes. The group requested a usage survey of dual use bays14 in Guildford’s Controlled Parking Zone and considered the results in determining its recommendations. The results of the survey are included at Appendix 6.

3.6 The task group’s draft recommendations were shared with officers for comments. No changes

were made to the task group’s recommendations, although a suggestion to re-order the findings to better reflect their respective significance and likely impact was respected.

3.7 It is regrettable that time constraints prevented sharing the task group’s draft recommendations

with councillors for comment.

4. Findings and proposals______________________________________

4.1 The task group’s conclusions and recommendations are presented below. The proposals reflect

the primary brief of the task and finish group – to improve on-street parking for the Borough’s

11

The cost of the park and ride network for 2016-17 was met from the on-street parking surplus for 2016-17 and the on-street parking reserve. Guildford Borough Council, Guildford Parking Annual Report 2016-17. 12

Department for Transport, Traffic Management Act 2004, Statutory Guidance, p.8. From April 2018 any surplus from the on-street parking account is to be split 60:20:20 between Guildford Local Committee, Guildford Borough Council, and Surrey County Council. The Guildford Local Committee and Guildford Borough Council have an ongoing commitment that any surplus is to be used on Guildford’s park and ride service. Minute EX81, Guildford Borough Council Executive, Management of On-Street Parking, 20 February 2018. 13

For more detail see the Reports to Guildford Local Committee, Controlled Parking Zone Review: Consultation on Sunday Restrictions, 11 March 2009 and Review of Guildford Town Controlled Parking Zone Pay and Display and Hours of Control, 12 September 2012. 14

For definitions of the types of on-street parking bays in Guildford, see glossary on Contents page.

Page 95

5

residents. Many of the group’s recommendations seek to amend the current permit parking scheme to provide residents with a more reasonable chance of being able to park near to, although not necessarily directly outside, their homes.

4.2 The task group’s findings and recommendations are arranged under eight headings: Sunday and evening parking controls; on-street pay and display; pressure on residents’ permit parking; Saturday parking controls; visitor permit parking; enforcement; permit fees; and outside the CPZ.

Sunday and evening parking controls

4.3 The task group proposes extending parking controls to operate 8.30am to 9pm, 7 days a week in Areas A, B, D, and the northern section of Area C. Currently, parking controls are operated 8.30am to 6pm, Monday to Saturday. Outside of these controlled hours, including the whole of Sunday, restrictions only apply on double yellow lines and on disabled parking places. The task group was advised that households with multiple cars might be against an extension of controls because their access will still be limited. Nonetheless, the group members felt that extending controls into evenings and Sundays in Areas A, B, D, and the northern section of Area C would improve availability of parking for resident permit holders.

4.4 The group was informed that there was sufficient off-street car parking available in the evenings and on Sundays for those displaced from on-street parking in Areas A, B, D, and the northern section of Area C. In relation to its proposal, the group was advised of the merits of the Council proposing controls for a large area and then reducing in accordance with consultation results, rather than a series of expanding proposals and consultations.

4.5 The task group noted that previous survey results of local residents over the issue of introducing controls had shown opinion to be evenly divided in some areas. Nonetheless, the group concluded that advertising the proposed controls was preferable to the more protracted alternative of encouraging residents who wanted extended controls to first petition for them.

On-street pay and display

4.6 To reduce parking pressure for resident permit holders, the task group recommend consideration of changing shared use bays to dual use bays within Areas A, B, and the northern section of Area C. The group felt the removal of the free time limited element of shared use bays and the introduction of pay and display bays in their place would deter shoppers and others from using them for free parking and thereby increase the availability of space for residents. The group was advised that there was a total of approximately 413 shared use bays in the areas involved in the proposed change.

4.7 The group recommends pursuing the extension of pay and display, including RingGo,15 into the residential areas of the Controlled Parking Zone. The task group felt the potential benefits in terms of increasing parking availability for resident permit holders, and consistency to avoid confusion over payment options, justified the proposal. In addition, the group was advised that some form of payment for on street parking, rather than a time limit, was much simpler to enforce. The group was advised by officers that a sound business case could be made for the necessary expansion of pay and display machines.

4.8 The group recognised the sensitivities of putting signage and pay and display machines in residential areas. In particular, the group considered the necessary size and prominence of the signage (detailed at Appendix 5). The group noted that that the details of signage for on-street parking were prescribed. The group was informed that the cost of erecting RingGo signage throughout Areas A, B, C, and D was estimated to be around £75,000.

15 RingGo is a mobile phone service that enables payment for parking with a credit or debit card, rather than using

cash at a machine. When motorists park in an area featuring the RingGo service, they contact RingGo by smartphone app, SMS, on-line, or calling, and then pay by phone for parking. The potential benefits to the Council of RingGo include a reduction in the number of on street pay machines, lower frequency (and costs) of emptying cash from machines, and improved flexibility for customers.

Page 96

6

4.9 In response to a suggestion from the group, RingGo had been approached informally about

assisting with signage costs and had responded positively, but wanted to know more about usage charging and implementation. The group was mindful that a surplus exceeding £600,000 was forecast for the 2017-18 on-street parking account.

Pressure on residents’ permit parking

4.10 The group reviewed the residents’ parking scheme in detail. Such permit schemes are

introduced in areas where there is parking pressure from non-residents. The group’s investigation included an in-depth review of the aims and restrictions of the scheme, including the issuance of residents’ permits and indications of pressure on spaces.

4.11 The table below gives an indication of the relative pressure on spaces in the Areas of the

scheme. Appendix 3 provides outline detail of the residents parking scheme. The group’s deliberations on the issues are laid out in the meeting notes within Appendix 1.

Parking Spaces and Resident Permits in the Controlled Parking Zone (2018 figures16)

*In Area D there is a limit placed on the number of permits issued and 290 pay and display only parking bays

** Unrestricted parking bays

4.12 With reference to details of residents permits, particularly the ratio of permits to available spaces,

the group noted that pressure on spaces was highest in Area A. To overcome the issue associated with the limit placed on the number of permits issued in Area D at any one time, households in Area D can acquire permits for adjacent areas, including Areas ,A, B, C, and H (see Appendix 4). A maximum of 60 adjacent Area A permits are issued. To reduce pressure for Area A permit holders and help ensure a more equitable outcome for residents the group

16

2018 figures provided by Council’s Parking Manager, May 2018.

Area Total number of

parking spaces

Number of permit

only

Number of

shared use

Number of

resident permits

holders

(Mar 2017)

Ratio permits to

space for permit

holders

A 802 520 277 1018 1.3

B 383 265 113 385 1

C 346 142 189 342 1

D 651 141 187 279 0.85*

E 320 178 141 255 0.8

F 733 209 523 372 0.5

G 119 0 119 43 0.4

H 274 0 274 80 0.3

I 687 20 350 (314**) 124 0.2

J 474 13 405 (53**) 157 0.3

Page 97

7

proposes a number of broad measures to reduce the pressure on spaces for resident permit holders.

4.13 To reduce pressure on parking in Area A, the group recommends increasing the limit on permits

in Area D. Specifically, increase the limit by 5 per cent (16 spaces) to 295 (90 per cent of available on-street parking space). The task group members indicated that the impact of the increase should be monitored to inform decisions about future increases in the limit. The group suggests a phased approach with, for instance, the initial 5 per cent increase assessed after a six-month period of operation. The task group acknowledges that more resident permit holders in Area D is likely to lower on-street pay and display income.

4.14 To reduce pressure on parking generally, the task group recommend that less well-used pay and

display only bays in the CPZ are converted into dual use on a case-by-case basis, that is to say, made available to permit holders. This may enable a greater number of Area D permits to be issued at any one time, thereby reducing the need for adjacent area permits to be issued. Members were advised by officers that this proposal could diminish access to parking for businesses and also reduce on-street pay and display income. In response, the task group members indicated that the impact of the changes on local businesses and on revenue should be evaluated (including monitoring through complaints) and reported in the annual parking report submitted to the Guildford Local Committee.

4.15 To reduce pressure on parking in Area A, the group recommends lowering the limit on issuing

adjacent permits for Area A. (While on the waiting list for a permit in Area D, residents can receive a permit for one car in an adjacent Area). The task group was advised that this proposal would push more parking into other adjacent areas and residents would need to walk further, but members felt it was a more equitable than the current situation.

4.16 In addition to lowering the limit on issuing adjacent permits for Area A, the task group supports

restricting Area A adjacent permits for those without an Area D permit. Specifically, no longer issue an Area A adjacent permit in relation to a second car. (Area D households with two cars, and no off-street parking space, would continue to be eligible for a permit for the other adjacent areas; namely, areas B, C, and H.) As Appendix 4 shows, there are currently 15 permits issued for Area D residents for parking 2nd cars in Area A, suggesting that on current figures the task group’s proposal would result in a gain of 15 less permits in Area A.

4.17 The task group proposes allowing Area A permit holders to access Area E. However, Area E

permit holders would remain restricted to Area E. Members felt this proposal was justified because of the pressure on parking in Area A and the relative availability of spaces in Area E (the group was advised that there were 255 residents’ permits issued and around 320 potential parking spaces for Area E).

4.18 It is worth noting that the task group decided against a simple enlargement of Area A to include

Area E due to the likelihood of facilitating internal commuting within such a larger area. While such a larger permit Area would provide more flexibility for people with permits (with less boundary problems), it would increase the risk of residents driving across the Area and parking.

4.19 The possibility of internal commuting within an enlarged Area A was considered by the task

group’s review. To help evaluate the prevalence and likelihood of internal commuting the group investigated suitable sites within Areas A, B, and F. A snapshot survey of street parking bays in the proximity of Guildford railway station, an area judged most likely to illustrate the scale of the issue, did suggest a limited amount of internal commuting. While a factor in not recommending an enlarged Area A, the task group considers the extent of the internal commuting does not warrant specific action at this time.

Saturday parking controls

4.20 The task group recommends the removal of Saturday parking controls in the northern section of

Area J. The group identified the northern section of Area J as St Johns Road, Pentreath Avenue,

Page 98

8

Downing Avenue, and Raymond Crescent. The group concluded that the parking pressure from non-residents was linked to the nearby hospital and university and that controls could be removed on Saturdays.

4.21 The group was mindful that the central purpose of a residents parking scheme is to help

residents park their vehicles. The group judged that the Saturday controls in the northern section of Area J were an unnecessary restriction for residents and their visitors because on-street parking spaces were only an issue for these residents on weekdays.

Visitor permit parking

4.22 The task group supports offering RingGo or a similar system as an option for visitor permit parking (in addition to visitor permit scratch cards). The group felt that introducing the option of paying for visitor permit parking by phone (or online) will provide a more flexible and convenient alternative than is currently offered by the visitor permit scratch card scheme alone. The group noted that other local authorities have introduced pay by phone as an option for visitor parking. The group was advised that there would not need to be any on-street signage to offer RingGo as an option for visitors’ permits.

4.23 To accompany the extended controls into evenings and Sundays (suggested in 4.3 above), the

group supports an increase in the household limit on the number of visitor scratch cards. Task group members suggest doubling the current annual limit of 30 per household for Areas A, B, D, and the northern section of Area C, with the cost unchanged at £2 per day. The group was informed that the charge for the visitors permit scratch card scheme was set by Surrey County Council.

Enforcement

4.24 The task group considered the Council’s enforcement approach and made no specific

recommendations, although it was aware that changes proposed (for example, the extension of pay and display) should simplify enforcement for CEOs.

4.25 Towards the conclusion of the task group’s review it was confirmed that Surrey County Council

had agreed to Guildford Borough Council continuing to manage on-street parking in Guildford and Waverley for a further five years. The task group was advised that recruitment of Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) had been helped by securing the extension and that the number of CEOs would shortly reach the full complement.

Permit fees

4.26 On balance, the task group decided against making any recommendation in relation to permit

fees. 4.27 The group was advised that Surrey County Council set the minimum charge for permits and that

these were under review and perhaps likely to be increased. The group was advised that permit charges could be increased to deter car ownership (or multiple car ownership) or a similar such policy objective, but not to raise revenue.

4.28 The task group received information detailing other local authority areas that used a scale of

permit fees to discourage high-emission vehicles or car ownership or to perhaps incentivise the use of Ultra Low Emission Vehicles (ULEV). The current permit scheme offers a discount for vehicles under 1200cc or those powered by an alternative fuel source.

Outside the CPZ

4.29 After receiving relevant information, the task group decided against making any

recommendations in relation to parking restrictions in the Borough outside Guildford’s Controlled Parking Zone.

Page 99

9

5. Recommendations________________________________

5.1 Based on the findings of its review, the task group proposes the following action.

That in order to reduce the pressure on residents’ parking, help ensure a more equitable outcome for residents, and further improve the Borough’s parking management:

(A) parking controls in Areas A, B, D, and the northern section of Area C, be extended to operate 8.30am to 9pm, 7 days a week;

(B) free limited waiting shared use bays within Areas A, B, and the northern section of Area C, be changed to charged dual use bays;

(C) pay and display, including RingGo, be extended into the residential areas of the Controlled Parking Zone;

(D) the possible contribution of RingGo to the costs of extending the pay by phone signage through the CPZ be progressed;

(E) the limit on permits in Area D of the Controlled Parking Zone be increased, in the first instance by 5 per cent;

(F) on a case-by-case basis, the less well-used pay and display only bays be converted into dual use, that is to say, made available to permit holders;

(G) the limit on issuing adjacent permits for Area A be lowered and that Area A adjacent permits no longer be issued in relation to a second car;

(H) Area A permit holders be allowed to access Area E;

(I) Saturday parking controls in the northern section of Area J be removed;

(J) in addition to visitor permit scratch cards, RingGo or a similar pay by phone system be offered as an option for visitor parking; and

(K) to accompany the extended controls into evenings and Sundays, the annual household limit on visitor scratch cards be doubled.

6. Conclusion__________________________________

6.1 The proposals from the task group for the improvement of on-street parking aim to provide a better overall facility for residents. The group has deliberately adopted a high-level approach to formulate and frame its proposals and shunned the temptation to focus on operational aspects or on particular individual bays. In developing its proposals, the task group members were conscious that if the recommendations were taken forward then the statutory consultation process undertaken as part of any proposal for making or amending a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) would invariably apply. In addition, the group would expect review points to be established to assess and report the impact of the changes, including any unintended consequences.

6.2 As stated above, on-street parking should not be considered in complete isolation. The task group consulted relevant parking strategies and policies and brought knowledge of the Borough’s park and ride scheme and off-street parking to its investigation. However, the group was keen to ensure that its recommendations were both evidence-based and within the brief set for its investigation. Additionally, the task group was aware that other aspects of traffic management may feature in future reviews by Guildford’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Page 100

10

Appendices

1 – Task Group Meeting Notes (November 2017 - February 2018) 11

2 – Scoping Document, September 2017 28

3 – Residents Parking Schemes (extract from Guildford parking strategy) 32

4 – Area D Permits 35

5 – Pay by Phone Signage 36

6 – Survey of Dual Use Bays in Areas A, B, C, E, and F 37

7 – Summary of Consultation Results on Sunday Restrictions (March 2009) 38

8 – Consultation Results on Pay and Display and Hours of Control (September 2012) 39

9 – Guildford Controlled Parking Zone (extract from Guildford parking strategy 40

Page 101

11

Appendix 1

On Street Parking Overview and Scrutiny Task and Finish Group

Notes of the first meeting, Sheepleas Room on 22 November 2017

Present: Councillors David Goodwin, Angela Gunning, and Mike Piper. Also present: James Dearling (Overview and Scrutiny Manager) and Kevin McKee (Parking Services Manager)

1. Apologies for absence The group was advised of apologies from Councillors Alex Chesterfield and Tony Philips.

2. Election of Chairman

Councillor Goodwin was elected chairman of the task group.

3. Terms of reference The group considered a Scoping Document approved by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 12 September 2017. The document described the terms of reference for the group’s work.

4. Background Information

The task group considered written information that Kevin McKee, Parking Services Manager, had provided. The group was advised of the existing policies and procedures, including the section of the Council’s Parking Strategy about Residents Parking Schemes. In addition, a number of possible issues for the review were outlined:

Parking outside the town centre.

Town centre issues: reduction in the amount of limited waiting/dual use parking; extension of controlled hours to Sundays and into the evening; structure of zones; numbers of visitors parking; and enforcement.

The group was informed about the process for the review and making of a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). The group was advised that Surrey County Council’s Guildford Local Committee considered recommendations and decisions relating to TROs. The group was informed that it was more efficient to bundle together items into one TRO for consideration by the Local Committee. The Chairman suggested the TRO process took about 18 months to complete. The Parking Services Manager indicated that changes proposed for safety reasons usually required less consultation and residents’ schemes often involved a number of phases of consultation. In response to a question, the Parking Services Manager indicated that the recommended amount of accessible parking spaces in car parks was approximately 6 per cent of total capacity although in Guildford this was adjusted according to demand (in Guildford many of the car parks are some distance from the centre). He confirmed that car parks were a Guildford Borough Council concern and that responsibility for on street parking lay with Surrey County Council. The group was advised that income from on street parking subsidised the park and ride scheme in the Borough.

Page 102

12

The Parking Services Manager indicated that some other local authority areas used a scale of permit fees to discourage high-emission vehicles or car ownership. He advised that Surrey County Council was considering such deterrents. Parking on pavements was not allowed in London, where there was a need to mark out bays on pavements. This was due to the Greater London General Powers Act . The group was advised that the Act does not apply outside London and the Council’s Civil Enforcement Officers can only issue a Penalty Charge Notice where a vehicle is parked on the pavement if there are formal parking restrictions applying to that part of the highway. With reference to a map of controlled parking zones in Guildford town centre, the group was advised of the arrangements for residents’ parking. The Parking Services Manager undertook to provide a map detailing the on-street parking restrictions throughout the Borough. The group was advised that there were two levels of penalty, the highest £70 (reducing to £35 if paid within the first 14 days) for parking where parking is not permitted, like yellow lines and a lower penalty of £50 (reducing to £25 if paid within 14 days) for contravening the rules where parking is permitted, i.e., staying too long. Group members questioned whether the 30 minutes limit on parking on North Street and Ward Street was sufficient and suggested it should be 40 minutes. In response, the Parking Services Manager indicated that the intention was for a car park to be used for stays of longer than 30 minutes. The group was advised that on street pay and display parking was easier to enforce than limited waiting. Similarly, on street pay and display parking was easier to enforce than visitor parking permits. With reference to the current one-day visitor permits, the group member suggested that the introduction of am and pm permits be considered. The Parking Services Manager suggested a 4-hour permit might be introduced, perhaps booked online or by telephone. With RingGo phone and pay parking, the Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) received a list of vehicles about to expire or expired already. A member of the group questioned whether drones could be used to aid enforcement in outlying areas. The group was advised of the parking enforcement arrangements with Waverley local authority, including Guildford Borough Council’s retention of 20 per cent of the surplus generated. The group questioned the feasibility of a Surrey-wide arrangement. In response, the group was advised that enforcing parking restrictions in Waverley Borough could be done more efficiently from a Guildford base than from Waverley Borough Council’s base of Farnham – enforcing in another Borough would likely involve more travel time for CEOs. Group members discussed consulting the public as part of their review or using the information retained from previous consultations. The Parking Services Manager confirmed that information on proposed Sunday restrictions and evening on-street parking controls could be provided from surveys. The Parking Services Manager indicated that details of signage for on street parking were prescribed. The group was advised that the Council can only use approved signs (this is so ensure that wherever you go in the country you will see the same signs and they have the same meaning). The meeting was advised that on street parking restrictions (other than double yellow lines) were not in place on Sundays and residents in some areas would have difficulty parking as a result. Conversely, residents in the Onslow area did want restrictions at the weekend (as parking spaces were only an issue on weekdays). The Parking Services Manager indicated enforcing in the evening and outside normal hours of control could be self-financing. Members commented on the importance of ensuring an availability of spaces in town centres during normal business hours and preventing shop workers taking available spaces.

Page 103

13

Members suggested the Borough’s park and ride schemes were too close to the town centre, with the result that some commuters walked rather than took the bus. In response, the Parking Services Manager advised that surveys had shown that generally few parked and did not take the bus. He explained that if the park and ride sites charged for parking, rather than bus journeys, receipts would be liable to 20 per cent VAT. In addition, he suggested that the cost of enforcing the park and ride concept would be higher than the revenue gained. The group was advised that a possible issue for enquiry was whether people were using residential areas to avoid parking charges in Guildford town. With reference to details of residents permits provided to the group, particularly the ratio of permits to available spaces, the members noted that pressure on spaces was highest in Zone A. The Parking Services Manager agreed that in Zone A and some streets on Zone B parking for residents could be problematic. In addition, he confirmed that Zone D permit holders were able to park in Zone A. [The Parking Services Manager confirmed that he would clarify the numbers within Table 9 and update group members.] With reference to enforcement, the group was advised that the CEOs worked 5 days a week and covered all 7 days. The group was informed that enforcing restrictions on a Sunday would increase pressure on the current CEO resource unless the number of CEOs employed increased. The group was advised that all local authorities within Surrey experienced difficulties recruiting CEOs. In reply to questions, the Parking Services Manager indicated that the basic wage of an CEO was £25k plus increments and allowances. He undertook to provide the group with confirmation of the figures for the CEO’s pay. The Parking Services Manager indicated he would provide details of the work vehicles available to CEOs, along with information on related training. The value in establishing the extent of intra-zone commuting was discussed by the group, particularly within Zone F. The Parking Services Manager indicated that this could be investigated and zone boundaries changed if occurrences were significant. He indicated that some local authorities had a single zone for the entire Borough, for example, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The group was advised that larger zones provided more flexibility for people with permits (with less boundary problems) but increased the risk of residents driving across the zone and parking.

5. Evidence Gathering

In addition to the information identified above, the group requested details of arrangements in other local authorities, including benchmarking CEO enforcement resources, CPZ structures, and visitor parking.

6. Co-option

The group was advised that the possible co-option of a non-councillor was a standard consideration for an overview and scrutiny task group.

7. Date and Time of Future Meetings The group agreed the next meeting would be scheduled for 4 December at 5.30pm.

Page 104

14


Notes of the second meeting, Sheepleas Room on 4 December 2017

Present: Councillors David Goodwin (Chairman) and Angela Gunning. Also present: James Dearling (Overview and Scrutiny Manager), Andy Harkin (On Street Parking Co-ordinator), Kevin McKee (Parking Services Manager), and Nigel P67 (Civil Enforcement Officer).

1. Apologies for absence The group was advised of apologies from Councillors Alex Chesterfield, Tony Philips, and Mike Piper.

2. Discussion with Nigel P67, Andy Harkin, and Kevin McKee

The Chairman welcomed officers to the meeting and explained that the group was interested to hear their views about how on street parking in the Borough might be improved. Nigel outlined his experience in parking enforcement, including 12 years as a CEO at the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead before becoming a CEO for Guildford Borough Council. The group was advised of differences between enforcement in the two regimes, including tighter organisation (such as GPS monitoring of staff) and routing of CEOs. In addition, Councillors asked for a comparison of the hours of operation, rostering, conditions of employment (notice required, leave arrangements), and shift patterns. The group was advised that the hours of enforcement in Guildford were between 7am and 10pm. The group was informed that late shifts were carried out on average once a week and that this meant each CEO was rostered for a late shift on one day every one or two months. The group was advised that the Council currently had three CEO vacancies (18 CEOs in post rather than 21). In response to questions, the Parking Services Manager indicated that 2 CEOs had been recruited from four attempts to fill vacancies. The group was advised that the Council had been short of CEOs for at least a year and that there were general difficulties in recruiting CEOs in Surrey. The group was informed that the existing 5 year contract with SCC for on street parking expired on 31 March 2018. The Parking Services Manager confirmed that recruiting staff became more problematic towards the end of the contract due to the uncertainty about the service continuing. He advised that CEO recruitment may improve following the renewal of the contract (confirmation of which was expected soon). The CEO advised the group he currently enforced on Sundays around twice month, and that Sundays were as busy as any other day. He indicated that Sundays were a work-day for many. The Parking Services Manager indicated that between three and four CEOs were on duty every Sunday and that Sunday working was voluntary and paid double-time. The group was advised that the Council’s CEOs worked a 5 day week to cover 6 days. Also, three of the twenty-one CEOs were assigned to the Waverley local authority area, and one was always stationed in the control room. The CEO advised the group that incidents involving abuse from members of the public were reported. He indicated that in the evenings CEOs worked in pairs at his previous Council for safety reasons. The CEO suggested that in his experience some form of pay for on street parking would be simplest to enforce and the next easiest would be restrictions featuring no return within 4 hours.

Page 105

15

In addition to Guildford enforcing on street parking in Waverley’s area [discussed on 22 November], the group was advised that Reigate and Banstead Borough Council enforced on street parking in the Tandridge District Council area, and that other district and borough councils in Surrey enforced their own areas. The group was advised that the local authority areas of Guildford and Waverley accounted for around a quarter of the on street parking in Surrey. The group was advised that Surrey County Council (SCC) wanted to see more grouping arrangements for the enforcement of on street parking by the districts and borough councils. Such changes would produce savings from economies of scale, but the group was advised that that some councils did not wish to relinquish enforcement to another local authority. The group was advised that Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) meant the police did not issue parking tickets on formal parking restrictions but retained the power to issue a fixed penalty to vehicles parked causing a danger or obstruction. In addition, revenue from parking penalties enforced by local authorities is retained to finance parking enforcement and certain other local transport measures; revenue from parking related offences enforced by the police would go to central government (which meant it was viewed by the police as a cost). The group was advised that the most common offence encountered by CEOs in Guildford was parking in a restricted street (yellow Line). The group was advised that the number of Fixed Penalty Notices issued by CEOs varied between individual officers – from a maximum of 20-22 each day to perhaps half that amount for other CEOs (or one FPN per hour). The Parking Services Manager indicated that each Fixed Penalty Notice issued resulted in an average of £30 revenue (including cancelations). The group was advised that further detail was available in a report submitted to Guildford Local Committee for consideration on 13 December 2017. The group was advised that the CEOs were able to exercise some discretion with vehicles parked to load or unload. The Parking Services Manager indicated the loading and unloading of goods vehicles was permitted, whereas cars were less likely to be. The group was advised that business permits were the same price as residential permits. The On Street Parking Co-ordinator advised that operational permits were issued for health visitors and similar professionals. The group was advised that all permits were area specific and business and operational permits were particular to one vehicle. The group requested further details of the business and operational permits from the parking Services Manager. The Parking Services Manager informed the group that the Council had a duty to make people aware of proposed TROs or changes to existing ones. The group was advised that costs of making TROs varied according to the complexity and length of the change, although there was a standard preamble in all legal notices for TROs. The group members were advised that the most recent large scale review for a TRO was the cumulative effect of 5-6 issues and that it occurred in 2016. Since the 2016 review, the aim had been for shorter, quicker reviews. The group requested further details of costs associated with making TROs, perhaps on a cost per review basis. The group was advised that a relevant report could be made available, dating from December 2016. The group was advised that information from previous reviews was available – the On Street Parking Co-ordinator confirmed that the group members could be provided with the suggestions for changes and comments put forward by the public in TRO reviews. The Chairman indicated that such information might be useful for gauging views on Sunday enforcement and other issues. The Chairman suggested the possibility of using the Council’s newsletter, About Guildford, to publicise TRO changes or fresh TROs. The Parking Services Manager indicated he would seek a legal opinion on this approach. In response to questions, the Parking Services Manager confirmed that 21 CEOs was sufficient for current enforcement requirements; further expansion of enforcement would necessitate more CEOs. The Parking Services Manager indicated that staging an additional four evening patrols each week

Page 106

https://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=196&MId=5506&Ver=4

16

would be equivalent to another CEO. He agreed that Councillors wanted more CEO patrols in outlying areas of the Borough. A group member questioned whether revenue would fall if the number of CEOs were increased and enforcement improved further (as people were thought less likely to risk a parking penalty if the chances of being caught were higher). The Parking Services Manager stated that central government set the level of financial penalties for on street parking and SCC set permit charges. He suggested SCC might increase minimum permit charges. The meeting discussed the merits of reducing dual purpose bays (which were time consuming to enforce) and questioned the overall advantage of limiting parking in the town centre to residents’ permit only. The possible introduction of pay by phone for on street parking was suggested, although the cost of changing signage (including posts) was judged considerable. The group requested further details on the costs of including RingGo or similar as an option for on street parking. The group was advised that 2-hour parking spaces were more easily enforced with a no return within 4 hours instruction, rather than no return within 1 hour. The On Street Parking Co-ordinator informed the meeting that this approach was being introduced gradually as opportunities arose. The group was informed that workers, students, and other residents were known to swap their cars around between parking bays to evade such parking restrictions. The Parking Services Manager indicated that the system of online renewal for permits, with the permits posted out, was felt to work well. In reply to a question, the CEO stated that different coloured permits for different zones would not make enforcement markedly easier. In response to a question, the group was advised that there were serial on street parking offenders. The group was advised of one example – a takeaway food van for which penalties from parking infringements were purportedly viewed by the owner as a cost that was equivalent (or less) than that for a trading pitch. The use of bailiffs to recover unpaid penalties was outlined briefly to the group. The process could take 3-4 months and would add substantial bailiff charges to an unpaid parking penalty.

3. Evidence Gathering

In addition to the information identified above, the group requested details of arrangements in other local authorities, including benchmarking data, and a map of the parking restrictions outside Guildford town centre.

4. Date and Time of Future Meeting The group agreed the next meeting would be scheduled for 10 January at 6.30pm.

The Chairman thanked the CEO, the On Street Parking Co-ordinator, and the Parking Services Manager for attending and answering questions.

Page 107

17


Notes of the third meeting, Sheepleas Room on 10 January 2018

Present: Councillors Alex Chesterfield, David Goodwin (Chairman), Angela Gunning, Tony Philips, and Mike Piper. Also present: James Dearling (Overview and Scrutiny Manager) and Kevin McKee (Parking Services Manager).

1. Apologies for absence There were no apologies.

2. Notes of previous meetings

The notes of the meetings held on 22 November 2017 and 4 December 2017 were approved. 3. Information and Benchmarking Requested

The group considered a bundle of documents prepared by the Parking Services Manager The meeting was advised that the additional information requested at previous meetings was included in these documents. The task group was advised that its final report would be submitted to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for adoption and then sent to the Guildford Local Committee for consideration. With reference to the survey information presented to the group, the Parking Services Manager confirmed that the survey had been sent to all residents and not just those with parking permits. Members considered the breakdown showing on street parking spaces and permits issued, listed by parking zone. From the figures provided, members identified considerable pressure on Parking Zone A. In response to questions, the Parking Services Manager indicated that extending parking controls into the evening could create problems. He informed the group that if pressure on on-street parking was due to residents, rather than visitors, then increasing controls would not help. The group discussed the options for introducing Sunday controls. Members noted the divided survey results of local residents over the issue of introducing controls in some areas, e.g., Onslow Village. The members concluded that advertising proposed controls was preferable to the alternative of encouraging residents who wanted Sunday controls to petition. In reply to a question, the Parking Services Manager confirmed that there was sufficient car parking available on Sundays for shoppers displaced from on street parking. The group determined that proposals for Sunday controls were desirable for Parking Zones A, B, D, and the northern section of C. The group was advised of the merits of proposing controls for a large area and then reducing in accordance with consultation results, rather than a series of expanding proposals and consultations. The group was advised that the views of local Borough and County Councillors would be canvassed as part of a consultation. The group was advised that there was a cap of residents permits in Zone D [267 permits] which resulted in a waiting list. Those residents on this list could obtain a permit for an adjacent zone. Members suggested that the pressure on Zone A caused by overspill from Zone D could be alleviated by limiting Zone A permits to Zone A residents. The group was advised that the waiting list for Zone

Page 108

18

D was typically 90, with a wait of between 6-12 months. Members proposed increasing the number of resident permits for Zone D by 90 to 357 [267+90=357] by decreasing the shared use bays. With reference to the general extension of controls, the group was advised that households with multiple cars might be against as permits were limited in number. With reference to extending the hours of operation of parking controls into the evening, the group agreed to consider the issues further at a subsequent meeting. In addition, the group was advised that recruitment of CEOs for evening enforcement might be problematic as the current team had been understrength for some time. The group discussed RingGo and was advised the service was offered as an alternative or supplement to Pay and Display in the Borough and might be an alternative to scratch cards for visitor parking. The benefits to the Council of RingGo included a reduction in the number of on street pay machines, lower frequency (and costs) of emptying cash from machines, and improved flexibility for customers. The group was advised that a 19p convenience charge was passed on to the customer in full. With reference to the costs of expanding RingGo as an option for on-street parking, the group discussed the possibility of obtaining a contribution from RingGo. The group was advised that the cost of erecting RingGo signage for Zones A, B, C, and D would be approximately £75,000. With reference to the issue of enforcing free on street parking, particularly ‘no return within 2 hours’, the group considered making all on-street parking permit only or introducing some form of charging. The group discussed how to prevent shoppers from using the two hours free parking. In relation to shared use bays, if it was proposed to make on-street parking resident permit only then opposition from residents could be expected. The group was advised that if charging was introduced then payment machines would be required as an alternative to RingGo. In addition, a reduction in pay and display spaces might be expected to reduce the subsidy available to the Park and Ride scheme. With reference to benchmarking information provided to the group, the possibility of a discount for low emission vehicles and arrangements for car clubs was discussed. Similarly, the use of virtual permits and the number of parking zones was considered. The difficulty of obtaining the ratio of permits to spaces for other areas was noted. The range of authorities benchmarked and the value in using comparable towns was discussed. The group was advised that Surrey County Council set the minimum charge for permits and that the fees were under review and perhaps likely to be increased.

4. Next Steps The group agreed that for its next meeting it would be helpful to see:

results of a snapshot survey of how many bays are free – on a Tuesday / Wednesday and again on a Saturday.

figures relating to Zone A and overspill permit demand from zone D – to gauge impact on adjacent zones, waiting lists for all zones, number of permits issued for second vehicles, and so on.

benchmarking information for comparable towns, such as Salisbury and Winchester.

Page 109

19

5. Date and Time of Future Meeting

The group agreed the next meeting would be scheduled for 30 January at 6.15pm for a start no later than 6.30pm.

The Chairman and group members thanked the Parking Services Manager for attending and answering questions.

Page 110

20

On-street Parking Overview and Scrutiny Task and Finish Group

Notes of the fourth meeting, Sheepleas Room on 30 January 2018

Present: Councillors Alex Chesterfield, David Goodwin (Chairman), Angela Gunning, Tony Philips, and Mike Piper. Also present: James Dearling (Overview and Scrutiny Manager) and Kevin McKee (Parking Services Manager).

1. Apologies for absence There were no apologies.


The notes of the meeting held on 10 January 2018 were approved. In response to questions arising from the notes, the Parking Services Manager indicated that the possibility of obtaining a contribution from RingGo for erecting RingGo signage would be pursued. With reference to the possible extension of parking controls into the evening, the Parking Services Manager indicated that if pressure on bays was actually caused by residents without permits (rather than shoppers or visitors) then further controls would not alleviate the issue. The group was advised that Surrey County Council (SCC) was expected to agree to Guildford Borough Council continuing to manage on-street parking in Guildford and Waverley for another five years. The group was advised that this would be under an amended agency agreement. The Parking Services Manager confirmed that the difficulties with recruitment of CEOs could be expected to lessen following the agreement.

3. Information Requested

The Parking Services Manager introduced information requested previously by the group. The Parking Services Manager indicated that he had been unable to date to obtain benchmarking information for both Salisbury and Winchester. This information also included an occupancy survey of shared use bays [bays which can be used by non-permit holders for a limited time period and by permit-holders without time limit] and details of overspill permit demand from Area D. The Parking Services Manager indicated that the survey of shared use bays produced a snapshot of usage. He suggested that the survey results depicted more empty space than he was expecting. With reference to lessening the pressure on Area A, members discussed the possible benefit of expanding Area A to include the current Area E. The possibility of internal commuting within such an enlarged Area was discussed. To help evaluate the prevalence and likelihood of such behaviour, the group discussed the value in investigating internal commuting within Area F, suggesting Dunsdon Avenue as a suitable site. The Parking Services Manager confirmed that internal commuting within a single area could be ascertained from the permit details of vehicles. He undertook to provide relevant information to the group’s next meeting. The group was advised that the surplus from on-street parking funded the town’s Park and Ride. [Surrey County Council and Guildford Borough Council currently have an agreement that the first call

Page 111

21

on any surplus from the Guildford on-street account would be to pay for park and ride. The proposal was that from April 2018 any surplus from the on-street account is anticipated to be split 60:20:20 between Guildford Local Committee, Guildford Borough Council, and Surrey County Council.] Members discussed whether there would be sufficient funds to meet the cost of park and ride with 20 per cent of the Guildford surplus deducted (compared with the pre-April 2018 agreement). In response, the Parking Services Manager indicated that funding the park and ride would become more difficult but was anticipated to be met from the on-street account, from a reserve and by developing better parking controls like bus lane enforcement and potential controls on Sundays. The group discussed the merits of converting less well-used pay-and-display bays to shared use bays. Members suggested the likely financial effects of such a change needed to be identified if possible. The Parking Services Manager advised that income from a bay used solely by a permit-holder would be significantly less than using the same bay for pay-and-display (a permit costs £50/£80 annually whereas a pay-and-display bay might be expected to take £1000s in income in the same period). Members were advised that changing all pay-and-display bays to shared use bays was likely to have a significant financial impact. Members discussed the possible expansion of pay-and-display into residential areas, including replacing the shared use bays which provide 2 hours free parking for non-permit holders to bays which could be used for up to 2 hours by pay and display/pay by phone or by permit holders. The group discussed whether this would have the benefit of preventing shoppers using free parking in shared use bays, while still enabling people to visit residents (i.e., in particular, the sick or elderly). The Parking Services Manager advised that installing pay-and-display machines cost approximately £3,000 (excluding maintenance and cash collection costs) and it was preferable to reduce the number of pay and display machines by offering pay by phone. The merit in preparing a business case and an invest to save bid for the expansion of pay-and-display machines was suggested. The group discussed whether changing shared use bays to pay-and-display would deter shoppers from using on-street parking and instead opt for car parks. In response to a question, the Parking Services Manager indicated that in area D a balance or mix of shared use bays with pay and display for non-permit holders, pay-and-display only, and permit only bays was preferable to making all areas shared use. The group was advised that shared use bays could provide flexibility for shoppers in the daytime and residents in the evening, although if residents parked all day then the space (and income) would be lost. The Parking Services Manager confirmed that shared use bays in area D used pay and display and had differing limits on the amount of time non-permit holders could buy. These periods are ½ hour, 2 hour, or 3 hour restrictions depending on how far the bay is from the town centre Members suggested estimating the financial costs and the benefits of converting less well-used pay-and-display bays to shared use. The area of Sandfield Terrace / Haydon Place / Martyr Road / The Bars was put forward as a worthwhile case study. In addition, the Parking Services Manager indicated that on-street parking revenues in that locality had been affected by the opening of Waitrose on York Road. Members requested details of how well-used the pay-and-display bays were. The Parking Services Manager indicated that information from cash machines and cashless payments could be provided to identify the usage of pay-and-display bays and model the effects of converting to shared use. Members questioned whether there would be capacity in the Council’s car parks to accommodate the increase from converting pay-and-display bays to shared use. After discussion, the members agreed that obtaining figures relating to car park occupancy was perhaps outside the remit of the review. In reply to questions, the group was informed that HMOs [Houses in Multiple Occupation] were entitled to a maximum of two permits each. This is the same for all households. In addition, the group was advised that replacing a lost permit incurred a fee of £15 to cover admin cover.

Page 112

22

With reference to the overspill permit demand from Area D, the group was advised that second car permits for the Town Centre residents [Area D] would always be in an adjacent area and never in Area D, i.e., there was a maximum of one Area D permit per household. In response to a question, the Parking Services Manager confirmed that the group could put forward recommendations relating to permit charges but that he understood SSC were also looking at it and would prefer changes to wait for their review. The Parking Services Manager clarified that permit charges could be increased to deter car ownership or a similar such policy objective but not to raise revenue. He indicated that the current permit charges had been calculated to cover admin costs and it was SCC policy to ensure permit schemes were self-financing. The group was advised that a minimum permit charge had been set county-wide by Surrey County Council. In reply to a question, the Parking Services Manager confirmed that a previous increase in permit charges had not prompted many complaints. With reference to the waiting list for permits in Area D, the Parking Services Manager explained the figures presented to the group. He indicated that there was a limit of 279 permits issued in Area D, rather than 267 as suggested previously. The group was advised that currently the number of permits was set at 85 per cent of the potential space available to permit holders [there are 328 parking spaces available to permit holders as per the table circulated.] With reference to the list of roads contained within the results of the survey of shared use bays, members requested a full list of roads for each Area in the CPZ . The Parking Services Manager advised that there was only controlled parking for residents in the town centre. The group was reminded of the time and cost savings of omitting an informal consultation stage and instead proceeding to publishing proposals and undertaking a statutory consultation.

4. Next Steps: Findings and Potential Recommendations The group recapped the potential areas for recommendations [listed below]. The first four areas related specifically to reducing the pressure on Area A caused by permits issued in association with Area D (the town centre): 1. Increase the limits on permits in Area D. Members were advised that the limit on resident permits

in Area D [279] was currently set at 85 per cent [328] of the available on-street parking space [permit only spaces and shared use spaces]. The group was advised that there would be 16 more permits available for every 5 per cent increase in the ratio, i.e., 90 per cent would mean 295 (16 more). The Parking Services Manager suggested that more resident permit holders in Area D would impact on-street pay-and-display income and, in turn, could affect the funding of park and ride.

The possible advantages of phasing-in proposals were discussed, including the opportunity this would provide to have feedback from residents on the changes and monitor effects on the availability of on street pay and display and therefore the potential effects on retail and other businesses.

The group discussed whether they should aim for their proposals to be cost-neutral. The group

discussed the balance between providing more parking for residents and maintaining access to businesses and the effect of any change.

2. Convert some less well-used pay-and-display bays into shared use. Members were advised this

option could reduce access to parking for businesses and also on-street pay-and-display income and funding of the park and ride. Members questioned whether income might be displaced by the changes rather than lost.

3. Lower the limit on issuing adjacent permits for Area A. This proposal would push more parking

into adjacent areas and residents would need to walk further.

Page 113

23

4. Restrict Area A adjacent permits for those without an Area D permit; do not issue an Area A adjacent permit in relation to a second car. Members noted that there were currently 15 permits issued for area D residents for parking 2nd cars in area A. . So on current figures there would be a gain of 15 less permits in area A.

5. Absorbing Area E into Area A. As indicated above, this proposal was designed to lessen the

pressure on Area A. The task group members considered whether the enlargement of Area A might facilitate internal commuting within Area A and concluded that the benefits of attempting to do so would be minimal. Nonetheless, the group re-affirmed the value in obtaining information on internal commuting within Area F.

6. Consider changes to shared use bays to pay-and-display to deter shoppers and other form using

them for free parking increase availability of space for residents. 7. In Areas A, B, D, and the northern section of Area C extend parking controls to run from 8.30am

till 9pm, 7 days a week (i.e., extend controls into evenings and Sundays). The Parking Services Manager indicated that the hours of operation of pay-and-display bays should be the same as the hours of operation of permit bays.

8. Consider the removal of Saturday controls in the northern section of Area J. 9. Offer RingGo as an option for visitor permit parking (an addition to visitor permit scratch cards). 10. Extension of RingGo into all Areas, in addition to possible expansion of pay-and-display. The

Parking Services Manager advised the task group members of sensitivities of putting signage in residential areas. Members suggested identifying the most used pay-and-display bays and installing RingGo posts and signage at existing post locations.

The addition or introduction of pay-and-display bays would mean that visitors would have a more convenient alternative to using visitor permit scratch cards. Similarly, the group discussed the flexibility of pay-by-phone rather than pay-and-display. The group was advised that the charge for the visitors permit scratch card scheme was set by Surrey County Council. The Parking Services Manager informed the meeting that he did not believe there would need to be a change to the signage to use RingGo as an option for visitors’ permits. The Parking Services Manager confirmed that different RingGo location numbers would be required for different on-street pay-and-display areas. The group members confirmed that recommendations should be shared with local Councillors at the Borough and County Councils prior to finalisation of their report. In response to a request from a previous meeting, the group was advised that the cost of putting the Council logo / identifier on consultation letter envelopes was estimated at an additional 4.5p per letter. The Parking Services Manager indicated that the Council would normally write to households at least twice. For example, a consultation involving 6,000 households / properties would cost an additional £540. The possible merit in a randomised controlled trial to test the effects of measures to increase response rates was suggested.

5. Date and Time of Future Meeting

The group agreed to invite Andy Harkin, On-Street Parking Co-ordinator, to its next meeting. Members were advised of the timeline for their recommendations to be considered by Guildford Local Committee in June. The Chairman indicated that task members be canvassed to for availability on 20 and 21 February at 6.15/6.30pm.

Page 114

24

The Chairman and group members thanked the Parking Services Manager for attending and answering questions.

Page 115

25

On-street Parking Overview and Scrutiny Task and Finish Group

Notes of the fifth meeting, Newlands Room on 27 February 2018

Present: Councillors Alex Chesterfield, David Goodwin (Chairman), Tony Philips, and Mike Piper. Also present: James Dearling (Overview and Scrutiny Manager), Andy Harkin (On-Street Parking Co-ordinator), and Kevin McKee (Parking Services Manager).

1. Apologies for absence Councillor Angela Gunning sent apologies.


The notes of the meeting held on 30 January 2018 were discussed. In response to questions arising from the notes, the Parking Services Manager indicated that RingGo has been contacted about the possibility of contributing to signage costs. He reported that RingGo had been positive about assisting with signage costs if pay by phone was introduced for on street parking. He advised that RingGo wanted to know more about the usage charging and implementation. In response to questions, the Parking Services Manager indicated that the contract with RingGo ended in one year. In response to questions, the Parking Services Manager confirmed that Surrey County Council had agreed to Guildford Borough Council continuing to manage on-street parking in Guildford and Waverley for a further five years. He indicated that recruitment of CEOs had been helped by securing the contract and that the number of CEOs would shortly reach the full complement of 21. The group considered the possible benefit of expanding Area A to include Area E [the conclusion of this discussion is detailed within section 4 below].

3. Information Requested

With reference to information requested previously by the group, the Parking Services Manager introduced the results of a survey of internal commuting within parking areas. The group was advised that a snapshot survey had been undertaken of on street parking bays in the proximity of Guildford railway station [in Areas A, B, and F]. The group was informed that there was some evidence suggesting a limited amount of internal commuting within Areas F, A, and B. The Parking Services Manager indicated that the streets selected for the survey were considered the most likely to illustrate the scale of the issue. With reference to the usage of pay-and-display bays, the group considered information detailing annual income. Members discussed changing the less well-used pay-and-display bays to dual use. The On-Street Parking Co-ordinator suggested specific changes to bays on Quarry Street and Sydenham Road. In response, the group agreed rather than recommend detailed, small-scale changes, it should aim for strategic proposals and leave the details for consideration and determination by Guildford Local Committee. Reviewing the pay-and-display usage figures, members questioned the likely impact of changing shared use bays [free time-limited and permit holders] to dual use bays [pay-and-display and permit

Page 116

26

holders] and changing pay-and-display only bays to dual use (i.e., allowing additional use by permit holders).

4. Conclusions

The group considered the potential areas for recommendations identified at the previous meeting and agreed to put forward 11 Recommendations.

11. To reduce pressure on parking in Area A, increase the limits on permits in Area D. Specifically, increase the limit by 5 per cent (16 spaces) to 295 (90 per cent of available on-street parking space). Members indicated the impact of the increase should be monitored to inform decisions about future increases in the limit. Members acknowledged that more resident permit holders in Area D would impact on-street pay-and-display income and, in turn, could affect the funding of park and ride. 12. To reduce pressure on parking in Area A, on a case-by-case basis convert less well-used pay-and-display only bays into dual use, i.e., make them available to permit holders. Members were advised this could diminish access to parking for businesses and also reduce on-street pay-and-display income and, in turn, funding of the park and ride. Members indicated that the impact of the changes on revenue should be monitored carefully. 13. To reduce pressure on parking in Area A, lower the limit on issuing adjacent permits for Area A. This proposal would push more parking into adjacent areas and residents would need to walk further. 14. In addition to 3 above, restrict Area A adjacent permits for those without an Area D permit. Specifically, no longer issue an Area A adjacent permit in relation to a second car. Members noted that there were currently 15 permits issued for Area D residents for parking 2nd cars in Area A, and this suggested that on current figures the proposal would be a gain of 15 less permits in Area A.

15. Allow Area A permit holders access to Area E. Area E permit holders would remain restricted to Area E. Members felt the proposal was justified because of the pressure on parking in Area A, relative availability of spaces in Area E (the group was advised that there were 225 residents permits issued and 319 potential parking spaces). In addition, the task group members decided against recommending an enlargement of Area A to include Area E due to the risk of facilitating internal commuting within such a larger area.

16. Consider changing shared use bays to dual use bays within Areas A, B, and the northern section of Area C. The group felt the replacement of free time limited bays with pay-and-display bays would deter shoppers and others from using them for free parking and thereby increase the availability of space for residents. The group was advised that there was a total of approximately 413 shared use bays in the areas involved in the proposed change.

17. Offer RingGo as an option for visitor permit parking (an addition to visitor permit scratch cards).

18. Pursue the extension of pay-and-display, including RingGo, into residential areas of the CPZ. The group recognised the sensitivities of putting signage in residential areas but felt the potential benefits in terms of increasing availability for resident permit holders and consistency to avoid confusion over payment options justified the proposal. Members noted that there was a business case for an expansion of pay-and-display machines.

19. Extend parking controls to run from 8.30am till 9pm, 7 days a week In Areas A, B, D, and the northern section of Area C. The group felt that extending controls into evenings and Sundays would improve availability of parking for resident permit holders.

Page 117

27

20. To accompany extended controls into evenings and Sundays, the group felt an increase in the limit on visitor scratch cards was needed. Members suggested an increase from the current limit of 30 per annum to 60, with the cost unchanged at £2 per day. 21. Remove Saturday controls in the northern section of Area J. The group and On-Street Parking Co-ordinator identified the northern section of Area J as St Johns Road, Pentreath Avenue, Downing Avenue, and Raymond Crescent. In addition, the group discussed the advantages and drawbacks of trialling the Council logo / identifier on consultation envelopes. The On-Street Parking Co-ordinator indicated that the possibility of obtaining a franking machine to imprint the GBC logo would be investigated. Members were advised that permit discounts were given for vehicles under 1200cc or powered by an alternative fuel source. Members discussed a suggestion to use permit fees and discounts to effect improvements in air quality, including possible discounts for low emission vehicles. The group agreed to recommend no change to the current permit fees and discounts at this time. Members considered whether to recommend residents should have access to off-peak space in Council car parks with off-peak capacity. The group determined that the proposal would be outside their terms of reference. The Parking Services Manager confirmed that resident permit holders for Area D (the town centre) were exempt from evening charges in Council car parks. The group members confirmed arrangements for sharing their draft report and recommendations with Councillors. Members agreed to use email to comment and agree their draft report, without the need for an additional meeting.

Page 118

28

Appendix 2

Proposed Scrutiny Review: On-street parking

1. Review Outline

Subject of review On-street Parking in Guildford Borough

Methodology / Approach Task and finish group

1.1 Reasons for the Review

Reasons for conducting this review Parking is a key issue for residents in the town centre and areas where there is significant demand. Parking controls can help but there is often a balance; what helps some residents can be disadvantageous to others. The Council conducts regular parking reviews of the restrictions but these are mainly reactive and respond to requests. Officers and Councillors feel it would be useful to have a holistic review of the way the current system works to see whether it can be improved.

Key question that the review is seeking to answer

Can on-street parking be improved to provide a better overall facility for residents?

Can on-street parking enforcement be improved to provide a greater deterrent?

Objectives of review / Areas for investigation

1. Consider current pressures on residents’ parking inGuildford town centre and elsewhere. 2. Consider permit eligibility, costs, hours of restriction,dual purpose bays, zone structure within the existing Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ), and parking service staffing levels. Also, consider residents' need for parking for visitors, carers, and trades people (including alternative options to the current scratch card permit scheme). 3. Consider enforcement and how it can help improvethe situation. 4. Consider potential improvements looking at thebenefits and disadvantages of each.

Page 119

29

Outcomes expected from conducting this work

1. A clearer understanding of pressures, options, anddifferent approaches. 2. A conclusion about the right structure for Guildfordand potentially other areas with parking stress. 3. Consideration of different enforcement approaches.4. If applicable, recommendations to Guildford LocalCommittee.

1.2 Possible sources of information

1. Benchmarking with other localities (including implementation charges and speed of the on-streetparking review process). 2. British Parking Association Guidance.3. Department for Transport Guidance.4. Local ward councillors.5. Feedback from residents (past consultation results about on-street parking; survey to evaluaterecent on-street parking changes).

2. Project Plan and Resourcing

2.1 Councillor Involvement

O&S Councillor leading review tbc

Other O&S Councillors involved tbc

Key Executive Councillors Councillor Matt Furniss, Deputy Leader of the Council and Lead Councillor for Infrastructure and Governance

Other Executive portfolios covered

2.2 Officer Support and External Involvement

Lead Officers Kevin McKee, Parking Services Manager

O&S officer James Dearling

Expert witnesses and possible co-optees tbc

Page 120

30

2.3 Council Services Expected to Contribute

Contact / Council Service Contribution Expected

Parking Services Background information and detailed knowledge of on-street parking (including Fundamental Service Review of 2015 and review of on-street parking review process).

Waste Management Identification of problems / potential improvements with on street parking.

Economic Development Identification of business needs.

Access Group Information about any accessibility issues relating to on-street parking.

2.4 External Organisations to be invited to Contribute / Submit Evidence

Contact / Organisation Contribution

Surrey County Council / Guildford Local Committee

Input on issues subject to review.

Emergency Services Views on any on-street parking issues.

2.5 Publicity and Awareness of the Review

Publicity activities to be undertaken Press releases and social media at launch and conclusion of the review.

2.6 Timetable for Core Phases of Review

Phase Time required Completion Date

Meetings and evidence gathering sessions

6 weeks 11 November 2017

Evaluation of evidence and formulate recommendations

2 weeks 25 November 2017

Produce the draft report 3-4 weeks 5 January 2018

Witness / Executive comment on report

2 weeks 19 January 2018

Consideration of draft report by OSC

– 6 March 2018

Report to relevant decision makers (i.e., Guildford Local Committee)

tbc

Schedule monitoring of the implementation outcomes

tbc

2.7 Specific Costs Identified

Anticipated call on Scrutiny Budget Minimal, aside from possible costs of targeted survey of residents and any expert witnesses.

Page 121

31

2.8 Equalities Issues

Relevant equality and diversity issues in relation to the proposed scrutiny review

On-street parking for disabled residents.

2.9 Constraints / Barriers / Risks

Including timing constraints to when the review can be carried out

Access to officer time.

3. Signed Approval

Signed: (By Chair on behalf of Overview and Scrutiny Committee)

Date Agreed: (By Overview and Scrutiny Committee)

Page 122

32

Appendix 3

Extract from the Parking Strategy:

14. Residents Parking Schemes

Purpose

To provide priority for residents and other key users in areas that would be subject to significant

levels of non-resident parking if parking was uncontrolled

Location

In and around Guildford Town Centre there are an estimated 3,661 permit bays and 2,234 are

dual use and 1,427 are permit only. The controlled area is split into 10 catchment areas labelled

A to J. [A map showing the catchment areas is attached as Appendix 9 to this report.]

Current controls

Where permit schemes are introduced residents with off-street parking are required to use it so

the limited amount of space on-street can be used by those without off -street space

Permit issue is limited to a maximum of two permits per household with the number being

dependent on the number of cars kept at the property and the amount of off- street parking space

associated with a property.

In area D (see table below) which consists of the town centre there is a limit of 261 permits that

can be issued. Residents go on a waiting list and receive a permit when there is space. While

waiting they can receive a permit for one car in an adjacent area.

Depending on the level of pressure on parking, there will be a mixture of permit only space and

dual use space. Dual use space can be used by permit holders without time limit and non-permit

holders for a limited period of time or unlimited parking spaces.

The aim of introducing a scheme is to provide sufficient parking for residents while minimise

potential displacement to other areas.

With the exception of a small area around G Live the controls apply Monday to Saturday 8.30am

to 6.00pm. There are no controls on Sunday. Around G Live the controls apply seven days a

week from 8.30am to 9.00pm.

Residents parking schemes need to be cost neutral and so the cost of the permit will be linked to

the cost of running the scheme. Currently the charge is £50 for the first permit and £80 for a

second permit.

There is a discount for vehicles with smaller engines and for electric vehicles and others powered

entirely by alternative fuels.

Residents are able to buy daily visitors permits subject to a limit per year.

[. . . .]

A residents parking scheme can operate successfully with more permits than spaces because at any

one time people will be away in their cars. Many residents are usually away in their cars during the day

and usually return in the evening. The current hours of control for most of scheme are 8.30am to

6.00pm Monday to Saturday and the greatest pressure on finding space occurs in the evening. The aim

of the scheme is to give residents priority to park over non-residents. A scheme that operates in the

Page 123

33

evening or at night will have a greater effect on residents returning home and is only beneficial to

residents if there are large numbers of non-residents trying to park in the area.

Changes over time

The Masterplan envisages higher density residential development in the centre and more space for

pedestrians. On-street parking space for residents is likely to reduce and we need to be able to respond

to this. There are a number of interventions we can make to ease this pressure.

Car Clubs

Car Clubs encourage less car ownership by providing cars that can be hired at convenient points within

the local community. The car club in Guildford is set to expand from two cars to seven with three of these

being Electric Vehicles. To increase their visibility the cars will be placed in residential streets. The

success of this will enable further expansion. The more cars that can be supported the more convenient

it is for residents using the service and in turn the more attractive it becomes to new members.

Strategic Objective

Support and promote the development of car clubs as an alternative to residents owning cars.

Creating More Space for Residents

The proportion of space reserved for residents will need to increase to help address the pressure caused

by development and the proportion provided for dual use reduced. The remaining dual use spaces

maybe attractive to town centre visitors as an alternative to paid for parking in car parks. To discourage

unnecessary parking but still allow flexible use for residents’ visitors, tradespeople and for visitors to

businesses and facilities based outside the town centre the remaining dual use should be converted to

pay and display. This takes away the incentive to avoid parking charges but still leaves the space

accessible to those who may need to use it but do not hold permits.

We also need to consider increase the hours parking controls apply to cover Sundays and longer into the

evening.

In car parks, the demand from visitors occurs during the day and generally, they are, less well used at

night particularly those further from the centre. We will look at offers to allow residents to use this space

and also where possible and demand justifies it to develop car parks for residents.

Strategic Objectives

To respond to greater pressure in residential areas by increasing the proportion of residents only

parking places.

To ensure spaces are available for residents at times outside our existing controls Monday to

Saturday 8.30am to 6pm by considering Sunday controls and controls into the evening

Look to support residents by offering off peak space in car parks with off peak capacity

Page 124

34

Permit Free Developments

Where there is already parking pressure in an area a substantial development can make the situation

worse if more residents choose to have cars and there is not the space within the development. Existing

residents also oppose new developments on the basis that they are likely to increase the parking

pressure.

This can be avoided if the development is declared permit free at the planning stage. This requires the

adoption of the measure as a planning policy and a change in the Traffic Regulation Order. It is

suggested that this is only applied to large developments where there will normally be an opportunity to

provide some parking within the development.

Restricting the use of the public highway in this way is a strong measure and is only likely to be justified

in the parking catchment areas with greatest pressure. Table 9 above shows that the areas where a

large development will have greatest affect are A,B,C and D.

Strategic Objective

To address the potential for a significant increase in parking pressure in residential areas A,B,C

and D caused by large developments by making new developments over 5 units permit free.

Page 125

35

Appendix 4

Area D Permits17

The rules in Area D are very different from the rest of the Controlled Parking Zone.

In Area D each household can only have a maximum of one permit to park in Area D. However, if there

is any off-street parking associated with the address they will not get a permit for Area D.

There is a limit of 279 permits issued in Area D. This means that once the limit is reached applicants go

on a waiting list and can obtain a permit for any adjacent Area.

Households with two cars and no off-street parking space can get one permit for Area D and one for an

adjacent Area.

Households with one off street space and two cars can get a permit for an adjacent Area.

While waiting for an Area D permit the household will only get a permit for an adjacent Area. They will

not get a second permit until they have their Area D permit.

There are limits on the number of adjacent area permits that can be issued:

Adjacent Area

Maximum number of

adjacent Area permits

Current number issued

Of the permits issued, number waiting for Area

D permit

Of the permits issued, number that are 2nd car

permits

A 60 51 36 15

B 10 4 2 2

C 30 15 5 10

H 60 37 15 22

Total 160 107 58 49

17 January 2018 figures.

Page 126

18

/0

9/2

01

7 1

1:0

8:1

8

Appendix 5

36

Page 127

SURVEY of DUAL USE BAYS

Area A Permit holders

Cars with no

permit Empty space Permit holders

Cars with no

permit Empty space

Eagle Road 8 4 0 10 1 0

Finch Rd 2 3 1 3 1 2

Falcon Road 2 3 1 3 5 0

Springfield Road 7 7 4 15 4 0

Foxenden Road 7 0 0 4 2 2

Victoria Road 9 2 2 11 2 0

Stoke Road 6

Leas Road 3 1 0

Margaret Road 2 2 1

William Road 4 4 5

Woodbridge Road 13 8 5

Gardner Road 2 2 0 2 1 2

Markenfield Road 9 6 7 7 4 2

Park Road 3 3 1 5 2 0

Drummond Road 0 1 1 1 1 0

Dapdune Road 14 1 0 14 2 4

Nettles Terrace 3 2 1 3 0 4

Artillery Terrace 6 6 0 8 0 0

George Road 7 3 1 7 4 0

Artillery Road 8 1 0 6 3 0

Church Road 8 5 0 10 2 1

Kings Road 2 5 2 4 4 0

Queens Road 6 4 4 13 2 0

Onslow Road 5 5 1 10 1 0

Walnut Tree Close 9 5 1

TOTALs 117 68 27 164 56 28

55% 32% 13% 66% 23% 11%

Area E

Recreation Road 9 8 0

Linden Road 2 3 0

Chesnut Road 3 2 0

Sycamore Road 2 2 0

TOTALs

66% 26% 8%

Area B

Denzil Road 10 7 2 7 2 4

Guildford Park Road 2 1 0

Rupert Road 1 1 0

Guildford Park Avenue 9 5 13

Ludlow Road 8 4 0 6 3 3

Bury Fields 8 5 2 10 5 0

Lawn Road 3 11 2 6 5 1

Bury Street 6 2 0 7 1 1

TOTALs 47 36 19 36 16 9

46% 35% 19% 59% 26% 15%

Area F

The Mount 2 5 9

Mountside 6 9 19

Maresall Road 6 2 1

Farnham Road 1 15 3

Annandale Road 1 6 6

Wodeland Avenue 19 9 72

Nethermount 3 0 8

Genyn Road 1 0 1 3 0 2

Upperton Road 2 2 3 3 3 1

Irwin Road 4 0 13 4 2 26

Scillonian Road 4 1 15 2 2 25

Iveagh Road 4 0 11 1 1 13

Bray Road 6 6 4 9 3 6

Poiltimore Road 3 2 1 12 4 66

Agaria Road 13 7 14 17 3 7

Madrid Road 0 2 1

Old Palace Road 4 5 25 4 6 33

Ridgemount 2 1 5

Lynwood 10 3 20

Sandalwood 3 0 3

Hollow Close 1 5 6

Dunsdon Avenue 2 0 1 4 4 5

TOTALs 59 34 123 97 74 302

27% 16% 57% 21% 16% 64%

Area C

Pewley Way 35 9 5

Addison Road 20 6 2

Chesham Road 1 1

Cooper Road 16 2 0

Bailie Road 9 5 0

Cline road 15 7 5

Alexandra Place 4 0 0

Warren Road 3 0 1

TOTALs 103 30 13

71% 21% 9%

Friday 26/01/18 Saturday 27/01/18

Appendix 6

37

Page 128

Q1

– Is

ther

e a

prob

lem

?

(%)

Q2

- D

o yo

u w

ant c

ontr

ols?

(%)

Q3.

Do

you

wan

t con

trol

s if

adja

cent

road

s ha

ve th

em?

(%)

Are

a

S.A.

A.

N

eith

erD

. S

.D.

S.A.

A.

N

eith

er

D.

S.D

. S.

A.

A.

Nei

ther

D

. S

.D.

24

20

11

18

26

25

15

8 14

37

38

18

7

7 30

A

(res

iden

tial)

4411

4440

851

567

37

27

16

11

21

22

26

14

12

13

31

38

21

10

9 19

B

(res

iden

tial)

4411

4340

1244

5910

28

15

10

9 25

41

13

9

8 19

49

28

19

8

10

35

C

(res

iden

tial)

259

6622

868

478

45

31

15

12

18

23

31

13

9 15

30

42

18

7

6 24

D

(r

esid

entia

l)46

1241

449

4560

730

9 10

24

16

38

11

12

17

15

41

14

16

18

9

38

Busi

ness

es

(ove

rall)

19

2454

2317

5630

1847

S.A

. S

trong

ly A

gree

P

leas

e no

te th

at m

any

of th

e pe

rcen

tage

spl

its w

hen

adde

d to

geth

er d

o no

t equ

al 1

00%

due

to ‘r

ound

ing’

. A

. A

gree

D

. D

isag

ree

S.D

. S

trong

ly D

isag

ree

Appendix 7

Sum

mar

y of

Con

sulta

tion

Res

ults

on

Sund

ay R

estr

ictio

ns (M

arch

200

9)

38

Page 129

Con

sulta

tion

Res

ults

on

Pay

and

Dis

play

and

Hou

rs o

f Con

trol

(Sep

tem

ber 2

012)

Are

a

Roads I

nclu

ded

Lett

ers

sent an

d R

esponse

s

Chan

ge t

o P

ay a

nd D

isp

lay

Chan

ge t

he h

ours

of

contr

ol

Tota

l N

o

Response

s

%

Yes

No

Don’t

Kno

w

Yes

No

Don’t K

no

w

Warw

ick’s

B

ench

All

pro

pert

ies in

W

arw

ick’s

Bench

betw

een C

astle

Hill

and F

ort

Roa

d

23

11

48%

36%

55%

9%

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

Mill

mead

Are

a

Bury

Fie

lds

Bury

Str

eet

D

evon B

ank

Hig

h S

tre

et

La

wn R

oa

d

Mill

mead T

err

ace

M

oun

t P

leasant

Port

sm

outh

Roa

d

The M

ount

43

30

15

1

59

48

50

109

136

15

3

4

0

9

8

7

5

0

35%

10%

27%

0

15%

17%

14%

5%

0

40%

0

0

0

33%

13%

14%

20%

7%

53%

100%

50%

0

56%

63%

43%

60%

81%

7%

0%

50%

0

11%

25%

43%

20%

11%

33

%

0

0

0

22%

88%

14%

40%

19%

53%

67%

50%

0

56%

13%

14%

40%

59%

13%

33%

50%

0

22%

0%

71%

20%

22%

Tota

l M

illm

ead a

rea

491

51

10%

24%

57%

20%

33%

41%

25%

Woodbridge

R

oad A

rea

A

rtill

ery

Road

A

rtill

ery

Terr

ace

C

hurc

h R

oad

Dapd

une R

oa

d

Dru

mm

ond R

oa

d

Gard

ner

Ro

ad

Georg

e R

oad

Leas R

oad

M

arg

are

t R

oad

Mark

enfield

Ro

ad

Nettle

s T

err

ace

O

ld S

ch

oo

l C

lose

P

ark

Road

Sto

ke F

ield

s

Sto

ke G

rove

S

toke R

oad

Wharf

Road

W

illia

m R

oad

Woodbridge

Roa

d

Unknow

n a

ddre

ss

81

42

94

64

93

48

86

69

27

1

12

9

22

48

63

6

15

22

39

182

20

13

26

21

18

10

34

10

12

35

2

6

17

9

1

2

1

13

13

7

25%

31%

28%

33%

19%

21%

40%

14%

44%

31%

22%

27%

35%

14%

17%

13%

5%

33%

7%

25%

38%

35%

38%

22%

20%

29%

40%

33%

37%

50%

0

18%

33%

0

50%

0

38%

8%

0

65%

46%

42%

62%

67%

60%

62%

50%

58%

49%

50%

83%

71%

56%

100%

50%

100%

62%

77%

57%

10%

15%

23%

0

11%

20%

9%

10%

8%

14%

0

17%

12%

11%

0

0

0

0

15%

43%

45%

31%

58%

48%

56%

10%

41%

80%

67%

6

9%

50%

0%

71%

44%

0

0

0

54%

2

3%

2

9%

50%

62%

31%

48%

39%

70%

50%

20%

25%

29%

50%

33%

29%

44%

100%

100%

100%

46%

46%

43%

5%

8%

12%

5%

6%

20%

9%

0

8%

3%

0

67%

0

11%

0

0

0

0

31%

29%

Tota

l W

oodbridge

Are

a

1129

270

24%

29%

60%

12%

4

9%

42%

9%

Appendix 8

34

39

Page 130

"T

his

ma

p i

s r

ep

rod

uc

ed

fro

m O

rdn

an

ce

Su

rve

y m

ate

ria

l w

ith

th

e p

erm

iss

ion

of

Ord

na

nc

e S

urv

ey

on

be

ha

lf o

f th

eC

on

tro

lle

r o

f H

er

Ma

jes

ty's

Sta

tio

ne

ry O

ffic

e C

row

n C

op

yri

gh

t.

Un

au

tho

ris

ed

re

pro

du

cti

on

in

frin

ge

s C

row

nC

op

yri

gh

t a

nd

ma

y l

ea

d t

o p

ros

ec

uti

on

or

Civ

il p

roc

ee

din

gs

.

Gu

ild

ford

to

wn

ce

ntr

e c

on

tro

lle

d p

ark

ing

zo

ne

(fr

om

26

/08

/20

14

)

No

t T

o S

ca

le

Gu

ild

ford

Bo

rou

gh

Co

un

cil

Lic

en

ce

No

. 1

00

01

96

25

, 2

01

4"

Pri

nt

Da

te2

3/1

0/2

01

4

Co

py

rig

ht

GB

C 2

01

4

Key

Are

a A

(5

/98

)

Are

a B

(2

/99

re

v 6

/09

)

Are

a E

(5

/98

re

v 6

/09

)

Are

a C

(6

/00

re

v 6

/09

)

Are

a D

(1

0/9

7)

Are

a H

(6

/00

re

v 6

/09

)

Are

a F

(2

/99

) re

v 6

/09

)

Are

a G

(2

/99

re

v 5

/14

)

Are

a I

(6

/00

re

v 7

/03

, 4

/06

& 6

/09

)

Are

a J

(9

/03

re

v 8

/14

)

App

endi

x 9

40Page 131

This page is intentionally left blank

Date post:	05-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times