A new controlled parking zone in a densely populated part of Brighton will be brought in from the start of next April.
Nine roads in Fiveways will have a mix of residents parking and pay and display bays after nearly 400 people backed the creation of a new zone.
The 391 people in favour of the scheme represented 75.9 per cent of those who responded to a consultation this year. The number against – 124 – represented 24.1 per cent.
The adjoining area will not be included in the new zone F after 623 people (57.4 per cent) opposed the scheme compared with 462 (42.6 per cent) in favour.
A Brighton and Hove City Council report said that a questionnaire was sent to 3,433 properties in the Fiveways and Surrenden area and 1,627 people responded – or 47.4 per cent.
The council’s Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee voted six to four in favour of the new scheme along party lines. Labour and the Greens were for the scheme and the Conservatives against.
Councillor Gill Mitchell, who chairs the committee, said that people living in the Surrenden area would be reconsulted when people in Preston Village were consulted next year about residents parking.
This was in response to a request from Councillor Pete West who said that people living in the Surrenden area would end up surrounded by controlled parking zones.
Residents addressed councillors for and against the proposed scheme. One of those against, John Colman, said that it would “leave most roads underused during the daytime like much of zone J and Preston Park Avenue”.
Mr Colman said: “This strikes me as a waste of scarce parking resources.
“My petition to abandon this proposal attracted 644 supporters. This was about twice the number of signatories on the Fiveways petition and shows the lack of support outside the Fiveways area.
“Much of the support for parking controls from outside the Fiveways area has come from people fed up with or in fear of camper van parking close to their homes and not because of any parking shortage.
“Most local residents I have spoken to assume the real reason was the council’s desire to make a substantial profit.
“I agree the Fiveways area has a parking problem but, in my opinion, the council has failed to address this.
“The major problem at Fiveways has been and remains too few spaces for overnight parking.
“The proposed scheme, however, only directly controls daytime and early evening parking. I think this is an opportunity missed.
“I would urge this committee to do four things for the benefit of our city and its residents.
“First, to carry out a citywide review rather than dealing with parking on a piecemeal area-by-area basis where the results are corrupted by fear.
“Second, to allow appropriate light-touch schemes when on a sound financial footing.
“Third, to stop all-day parkers occupying valuable spaces by setting up a proper park and ride scheme for the long-term benefit of our city.
“Fourth, to stop ignoring the camper van problem, especially those being slept in.”
Another resident, Andrew Coleman, presented a petition in favour of the new zone. He said: “The area north of Preston Drove, particularly near Fiveways, has been badly affected by displacement parking for the last year since the extension of Zone J to Preston Drove.
“The displacement parking is by people who live in zone J who won’t pay for permits, commuters, large trade vehicles and weekend visitors.
“This has led to residents having to park a long way from their homes, dangerous and anti-social parking on corners and loss of trade to local businesses.
“The problems are worse in the evenings and at weekends.
“An epetition to the Council earlier this year asking for the consultation process to be expedited was signed by 366 local people.
“The current parking pressures are mainly found in the Fiveways area which is characterised by terraced houses with no off-street parking, compared with the houses with off-street parking in the Surrenden area.
“The effect of displacement parking should be less in the Surrenden area as many residents have their own off-street spaces.”
Councillor Ken Norman called for a greater use of light-touch schemes. He said: “I am the opposition spokesman for adult social care, health and wellbeing and truly believe that such draconian proposals are just a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
“They will do nothing to improve the health and wellbeing of anyone in this city.
“We need a sensible approach to parking across this city for residents, workers and visitors alike.”
He also called for a citywide parking review “with the intention of not adding any more devastatingly negative parking schemes across the city and would like to see a fairer and more graduated approach with parking from the city centre outwards to the city boundaries”.
Councillor Geoffrey Theobald said: “Quite a lot of people out there say we’re just doing this to make money.
“Every time you create a new zone, you move the problem further out until you’ve got more and more areas all the way to the bypass.
“The only reason people in some of these roads voted for is because they fear the vans parked down the road will start parking outside their homes.”
Councillor Alan Robins said: “It’s far easier to identify these problems than it is to come up with a solution to them. I don’t really see the alternatives.”
Councillor Joe Miller said: “It strikes me the ball started rolling a long time ago and it’s very difficult to stop.”
And Councillor Maggie Barradell said: “It has been one of the most interesting email inbox exercises!
“We’ve heard how much today parking exercises people. It creates a lot of stress.
“Living near the hospital, I have learnt that I can never park near my house.”
And she added that there would always be the edge of a zone and that, even with parking zones, people are not guaranteed a parking space.”
Councillor Louisa Greenbaum said: “CPZs (controlled parking zones) aren’t going to solve the problem. They’re not a long-term solution. They’re a sticking plaster.”
She echoed Councillor Barradell when she said: “We have to support sustainable means of transport in this city.”
The committee heard from people living in various parts of Brighton and Hove and their ward councillors about parking problems. They included Preston Village, the area between Hove Park and Dyke Road, parts of Portslade and West Hove.
And a timetable was agreed for further consultations over the next three years in Ditchling Gardens and Hollingbury Road, the Hanover, Elm Grove and Craven Vale area, Preston Village, the West Hove and Wish area and Hove Park.
How about yellow lines in manor hill as parking is restricting traffic going up and down and also put them at the racecourse as parking on both sides isn’t allowing traffic to flow also the top of craven Vale there is a sign saying no parking on verge still parking there.
Here here! April Tucknott
I agree with the race course area.Race course area at Freshfield Road is a nightmare. Cars parked on either side and on verges, flow of traffic comes to a standstill and also the parking makes it nigh impossible to manoeuvre out from Pankhurst with the additional parked cars on the pavement corners and parked atrociously. Manor hill has become a nightmare as well for access.
Many are workers for the hospitals…..my point being, these people get discounts for their housing needs and to be near their jobs! Why do they use their cars? Hospitals should also have adequate parking on their grounds for their patients. They can’t expect all to use public transport. Most are unable to and rely family and friends to aid them.
Something needs to be done around this area before a major incident happens (the three speed limits don’t help either, 40,30 and 20!)
The main problem with parking is that households have more then one car these days, thus taking more room up to park them. A much more sustainable solution to this problem, which in the long term may have health benefits, is to have staggered fees to park. So for instance, household X has three cars, they get one permit free, car two has to pay £1500 per year but car three has to pay £2500 per year. This might encourage people to give up their cars, or even share cars, thus bringing down omissions and improving air quality. It’s not rocket science really!