A decision to convert all of Brighton and Hove’s “light-touch” controlled parking zones into full schemes one of the options in a review called by the new Labour council.
Light-touch schemes currently restrict resident-only parking to two hours a day, usually one hour in the morning and one in the afternoon, to prevent commuter parking.
At February’s “budget council” meeting, councillors agreed to a five-year plan to restrict parking from 8am to 8pm daily in the current light-touch zones.
After concerns were raised as part of a review of the Surrenden Road area scheme, Labour councillor Trevor Muten said that the decision to change light-touch schemes was included in a city-wide review.
One resident, Iain McGill, spoke out after receiving a letter from Brighton and Hove City Council last month alerting him to the online consultation and five-year programme to end light-touch schemes.
Mr McGill said: “This ‘consultation’ is only consulting upon how soon the scheme will be introduced, with no option to vote against it.
“The areas which have light-touch schemes are those areas where residents have voted for just that.
“For the council to then try to impose full schemes upon them when they have already voted otherwise is absolutely outrageous and makes a mockery of democracy in this city.
“The council decision to do this was made in the spring by the budgetary committee, which Labour have decided to ‘take forward’.
“This also explains the council’s recent attempt to foist a full scheme on Hollingdean when that is not what the people of Hollingdean voted for either.
“So why are the council trying to milk everyone again and again? Clearly, the original plan was to make everything a full scheme and rinse residents with hugely inflated pay-per-hour prices.
“With a new administration, there’s clearly no need to stick to that plan. In a ‘cost of living crisis’, surely they should be solving people’s problems, not creating them?”
Councillor Muten, who chairs the council’s Transport and Sustainability Committee, urged residents to complete the online consultation which ends on Sunday 10 September.
He said: “From the findings from the recent public consultation in Hollingdean, the council listened to the outcome where residents were clearly not in favour of the introduction of fully permitted parking.
“Labour is committed to a city-wide review of parking. As part of a full review of parking across the whole city, we are looking at the previous administration’s plan to impose all-day permit parking in some areas where there are light-touch restrictions in place.
“I understand why there has been some concern in consultation outcomes in the past and we plan to put that right. We want to restore trust in the council.
“Labour have promised to listen to residents and take their views into account when making decisions that affect them. And that’s what we will do.”
The council said: “A five-year programme to change all light-touch parking schemes to full schemes was agreed by budget council in February of this year.
“However, councillors and council officers will soon be meeting to discuss this programme as part of a wider review of parking in the city.
“Separately, parking schemes that have been introduced recently are being reviewed as part of the normal review process after a year or so of implementation.”
The consultation is open on the council website at consultations.brighton-hove.gov.uk
The council currently has no Transport and Sustainability Committee meetings scheduled on the council calendar.
The Council knows damned well, that only a few hundred of the thousands of residents asked, if they want or not want parking permits will bother to reply!
The same thing happened in Upper Lewes Road. 3,000 people polled, 243 bothered to reply! Out of that 243 people that replied, 169 said yes. And they were probrably Green voting students who didn’t rely on cars to get around!
Preston Park Station was another area, where the vote was evenly split 50/50. So what did the Green Council do? They polled enough people in Dyke Road and Dyke Road Avenue to get the result they wanted, that being to impose parking permits!
They were totally relying on people’s apathy to be able do exactly what they wanted to do all along, which was soak motorists even more with the added bonus for the Council for charging even more on the Council Tax for and ecn less service such as road resurfacing!
And the apathetic Brighton people dutifully obliged the Greens!
The whole business as well as how the Greens have ran Brighton council and recklessly squandered rate payers money on one stupid, vanity idea after enough has been nothing more than dishonest and frankly scandalous!
I’m not sure you understand how democracy works. If people don’t care enough to have a say on an issue, that’s pretty telling.
I think the point was that the so-called consultations are often a sham.
On the one hand, we find that so many residents don’t get to hear about proposed changes that affect them until after they have been agreed on.
Secondly, when you do get consulted the questions asked are often loaded, or don’t offer the basic option of saying; ‘I don’t want this’ .
Thirdly, we also know that, under the last administration, the consultation about the Old Shoreham road cycle lane was a battle ground between local residents and green party activists and cycle lobbying groups – where people outside Brighton and Hove were invited to skew the consultation results in favour of a cycle lane that cyclists themselves chose not to use.
It’s important that people are given the chance to make comments. I completely agree with you. Personally, I don’t believe a bit of paper tied up to a lamppost is sufficient.
Never really experienced a loaded question in my capacity, but maybe that is my privilege as a representative for my area. Articulation can make significant headway into these sort of things, I’ve found.
I’m in two minds about the third one, and that comes from the scope of the consultations. Do you just want local people participating, or is there a benefit from outside interest groups and their experience? I think all criticism has some merit, but should be weighed on the strength of argument. At least, how I’ve always operated.
“Light-touch schemes currently restrict residents’ parking to two hours a day, usually one hour in the morning and one in the afternoon, to prevent commuter parking.”
Shouldn’t that read “residents only parking” to two hours a day?
Thanks Hendrik. It was a sort of shorthand for the nature of the scheme but you make a fair point so we’ve changed it for clarity. During the resident-only times, non-residents can park and pay in dedicated bays. We were trying to contrast the two hours of restrictions in light-touch zones with the 12 hours of restrictions in “full” zones rather than give a detailed description of the rules.
You are wrong again! In the W light touch zone and probably all the others during the resident only times times non-residents cannot park at all as there are no park and display bays.
I live in a light touch zone. It works really well. During the day the streets are mostly empty so people who need to park to visit shops and business can do. Friends who visit can park. And weekends there are no restrictions.
This is perfect as it stops the 9-5 commuter from parking here like in the past.
If this was converted to an “all day” scheme then we loose the ability to have friends to visit. And the local shops have no where for people to park. If this was converted then they would have no where to park as there are no paid parking bays here at all.
Light Touch schemes work – leave them alone. Don’t adopt the Greens ill thought out ideas.
Incorrect, some do have parking bays for non residents.
I am horrified at how the city is creeping further and further outwards with its prohibitory and officious signage. Leave our suburban, residential streets alone!
Let’s face it .. the council is bankrupt.. fact ! So they have to seek every possible source of revenue regardless of whether it’s a Green , Lab or Conservative majority .. and since council tax raises are limited and demographics favour non-paying students, the only other source is motorists .. parking fees are maxed out .. so what’s next ? The holy grail ( even for so called car hating Greens) is the next thing coming .. mark my words .. CONGESTION CHARGING ( followed by ULEZ).. hence the apparently senseless road works/traffic light programming .. create the problem then bring in the “solution” … it’s all about the ££
Let’s face it we have town amenities yet classified as a city if you are a resident you should be entitled to park!! Take away the ridiculous bike bins .. Labour’s treatment of the locals seems to be heading the same way as the green party!!! Greed it all comes down to GREED stop making residents pay for the councils incompetence
A single bike park, that take up a third less space compared of the space of a car, is not the issue here.
But the rot started with the previous Labour council. Until they interfered, one could park free of charge, at any time, close to Hove Town Hall. There never was a problem, especially for people who drove in from outside the area and worked there. There was always plenty of space for parking Then the council started charging for and so drivers parked further away. This affected the residential areas, and naturally there were complaints, which led to parking restrictions and charges there. And like a set of dominoes this has spread exponentially further and further away from the centre, as the greedy council filled their coffers. The council created a problem that did not exist before. And then of course the Greens moved in, with their particular agenda, and overcharged. And now we are back with Labour, heaven help us!
That was a long time ago, about two decades. Thinking about the “good old days” hardly makes for a compelling modern argument.
Well done that resident for putting the problem so succinctly. Restricted parking is hurting residents and visitors alike and riding roughshod over a democrat vote is nothing short of a communist regime.
More attempts to introduce stealth taxes and punish motorists.
How about re-instating parking at Black Rock, and along Madeira drive ?
That’s about £million a year (as stated by the greens)
Green math being unreliable, but that’s not a bad idea for those who wish to access the sea and the new structures down there, that makes sense.
Excellent news. As any increase in charges are ringfenced to other transport initiatives, this will enable the Council to keep and extend the subsidised bus fares, helping out the less fortunate residents that rely on public transport.
Driving would perhaps not be so unaffordable to many if it were not for the cost of parking a car here ?
A low emission vehicle in a high demand zone (M, Y, Z) has a 12 month permit cost of just £178.85. This is not expensive and could easily be doubled to provide even better public transport.
The four garage sites in my area have overwhelming popularity, and are almost never empty.
Exactly right. Brighton is a tiny city with too many cars
And no workable park and ride schemes, no public transport except a slow and expensive bus service?
Of course what we really need is an integrated, city-wide transport strategy – one which considers all forms of transport, whilst we help people get to their places of work and welcome visitors to what is still a visitor-led economy.
I can get a bus from London Road to Portslade, through the city centre and Western Road covering all major shopping areas, for just £2. The bus service is not expensive, but by increasing parking charges to subsidise bus fares even more it could be even cheaper.
Limit Brighton and Hove centres. Everywhere else have it free.
It’s an awful idea, unfortunately, especially when you look into the granular detail of what that would do. Simple example. Hospital parking would decimate Kemptown, Whitehawk, Bristol Estate, Craven Vale in sheer numbers alone.