Yarm Parking consultation - my response

A number of residents have asked me for details of my response to the Yarm parking tax consultation, so here it is:

Dear Mr Bond

I have a number of comments and concerns I wish to make regarding the three proposed TROs currently being consulted on. I trust it is acceptable to address each TRO within this single letter.

 

i) High Street Pay and Display (including residents’ permits), Loading Bays and Taxi Ranks

 

The council’s stated aim, to increase the availability of short-stay parking spaces in Yarm, is laudable and long overdue.  However, the council has failed to provide any compelling evidence that this aim can, or will, be met by way of the current proposals. In fact, there is potential for the situation in Yarm to deteriorate gravely as a direct consequence of these proposals.

As has already been highlighted in the representation made by Michael Kitching of SK Transport Planning Ltd, the council first needs to fully understand the current use of the existing car-parking facilities in Yarm before it can assess the impact of any changes to the current arrangements and make any informed decisions. To achieve this the council needs to undertake a comprehensive study of the current usage, and good practice is for this to be done by way of a parking beat survey.

Neither a parking beat survey nor anything comparable has been undertaken by the council. To bring forward the proposed TROs without having taken this necessary first step is negligent and leaves residents and traders alike vulnerable to unseen (by the council at least) consequences.

The only survey relating to parking undertaken to date and made available to residents is the market research undertaken by NEMS in 2011. This is wholly inadequate for the purpose of making any informed decisions on changing the existing arrangements in Yarm. NEMS Market Research is not, nor do they profess to, professional parking or travel planning consultants. They did not undertake any meaningful parking study, their data mainly being extrapolated from small sample surveys undertaken. Their report is not a meaningful parking study and it is wrong of the council to contrive to treat it as such.

This absence of any detailed study or baseline data makes it impossible to make any evidence based decisions, or to assess the likely impact of the proposed changes. On this basis alone it is reckless of the council to proceed with the proposed TROs.

I am extremely concerned about the impact of removing the current maximum stay of 2 hours on the High Street; you will be aware that the proposed TRO imposes no maximum length of stay other than what the visitor is prepared to pay for.  In effect this will convert every short-stay parking space within the disc controlled zone into a medium- or long-stay parking space, contrary to the council’s stated aims.

Common sense dictates this will result in an unquantified number of visitors staying in excess of the current maximum of two hours. How this will lead to an increase in the availability of short-stay spaces is unexplained and is indeed counter-intuitive.

This will be to the detriment of Yarm traders in two profound ways. Firstly, the reduced availability of parking spaces, as longer stays can only result in a reduced turnover of vehicles and therefore visitors / shoppers. Secondly, NEMS’ report illustrates that the average spend of visitors reduces as the length of stay increases – the average spend of visitors (excluding workers) staying for more than 2 hours is 34% less than visitors staying for 1 to 2 hours. The average spend of visitors staying for more than three hours falls off a cliff edge.

I would therefore request that urgent consideration is given to amending the TRO to limit the maximum length of stay on the High Street to 3 hours. This would lessen the detrimental impact on traders whilst accommodating those visitors wishing to stay for more than two hours.

I am also concerned that the proposed residents’ permit scheme will also impact detrimentally on traders, and that this impact has not been (and cannot be, given the lack of a proper parking survey) properly considered assessed and quantified.

The requirements of those residents who live on or off the High Street must be of primary concern to the council before proposing any changes to the existing arrangements, and it is pleasing that the council appears to have taken this on board. However, that can be no excuse for proposing a scheme which presents a real and present danger to traders.

The council has failed to quantify the number of residents’ permits it expects to issue. Nor has it qualified how frequently and at what times of which days it expects these permits to be used. The same failures apply equally, and perhaps more worryingly, to the visitors permits residents will be permitted to buy. These failures are entirely understandable, given the lack of any parking study having been done, but are nevertheless inexcusable.

The current proposals will see approximately 150 properties eligible to apply for up to two parking permits and to buy the visitors permits.  We will therefore see anywhere between 0 and 300 residents’ permits, plus an unknown number of visitors’ permits, used on any given day. As the High Street currently has only 80 unrestricted parking spaces available to residents, the risk that we will see an reduction in the number of available short-stay spaces (as the permits will allow residents and visitors to park in a short-stay space at no cost for an unlimited period of time) is great.  This risk is undoubtedly at its greatest on Saturdays, the busiest day for High Street traders.

Once again, as the council is unable to quantify this risk it would be reckless to proceed with the proposed TROs at this time.

I am equally concerned at the absence of any measures to minimise or mitigate the inevitable displacement of vehicles from Yarm High Street to peripheral areas.

Given the change from a free parking arrangement to a charged parking arrangement, and given the incontrovertible and widespread opposition to such a change, it is inevitable there will be considerable resistance to the proposed changes which will result in displaced vehicles.  The number of displaced vehicles will only increase when we see a reduced availability of short-stay parking spaces on the High Street (as I have already explained), and given the reduced number of off-street parking spaces as a consequence of another of the proposed TROs.

Once again, the council has failed to quantify the anticipated level of displacement (understandably in the absence of any parking study having been undertaken), failed to identify to where these vehicles may be displaced, and has failed to propose a single measure to mitigate or combat any issues which will ensue in neighbouring streets and communities from this displacement. This is unacceptable. When this matter has been raised verbally with officers, their response has been to say that they would reactively address any issues that arise due to such displacement. To adopt this approach, in favour of proactively dealing with this issue, is wholly unacceptable.  Once again, it would be reckless of the council to proceed with the proposed TROs until this issue has been satisfactorily addressed.

Finally, and this point almost seems too obvious too mention, given the risks of a reduced availability of parking spaces and the risk of a substantial number of vehicles being displaced, it would be reckless to implement any of the proposed changes prior to additional off-street parking provision having been brought in to use.

The council’s website states “encouraging process on securing suitable sites in the vicinity of Yarm High Street is being made”. Whilst this comment needs to be taken with a healthy pinch of salt, given how many years we have heard this line, it must be a prerequisite for these sites to be brought to fruition and delivered before any other of the proposed changes could be tolerated.

With regards to the taxi rank element of the plans, I wish to consult with both residents and taxi drivers some more and will write separately to you on this matters before the closing date of Friday 26^th July 2013.

In summary, there is a real – though, sadly, unquantifiable – risk that the proposed TRO would bring about consequences contrary to the council’s stated aim, namely to increase the availability of short-stay parking spaces.  Until such time as a comprehensive parking study has been undertaken, and the risks of any proposed changes identified, quantified and mitigated as far as is possible, it would be reckless and negligent of the council to proceed with the proposed changes.

 

ii) Existing off-street car parks, pay and display

 

It is extremely disappointing that the council has decided to implement parking charges at the two existing off-street car parks. It is also extremely disappointing that the justification for this change (as referred to in the notice) has not been made available to residents on the council’s website.

It is pleasing that the charges have been set at such a relatively modest level. However, this in itself seems to put the lie to any argument that such charges are necessary to contribute to the provision of any additional off-street parking.  Such a contribution, even over a number of years, would appear to be minimal, particularly in light of the contributions to meet this end which have recently been secured as a condition in the approval of a number of major housing applications which have been approved.

It has also been argued that it is only equitable to charge for on- and off-street parking in Yarm as this is currently the case within Stockton. There is very little merit in this argument whatsoever. The differing nature and needs of the two towns are obvious, and require very different solutions. The ‘one size fits all’ approach is rarely an appropriate solution, let alone the best, to any problem. Furthermore, there is an iniquity in the amount of works currently being undertaken in Stockton Town centre at a cost of tens of millions of pounds without visitors to Stockton being asked to subsidise these, and the council’s stance that any additional works in Yarm (i.e. the provision of additional off-street parking provision) require the subsidy of residents / visitors.

Furthermore, given the wide scale opposition to the introduction of parking charges in Yarm, there will undoubtedly be resistance and a resultant level of vehicle displacement from the off-street car parks. I have already explained in some detail my concerns about displacement earlier in this letter and they apply equally to the implementation of charging in Yarm’s off-street car parks.

 

iii) Side / back street waiting restrictions

 

Whilst not universally popular, I broadly welcome the majority of the proposed new restrictions.

I am concerned at the proposed new restrictions on High Church Wynd.  I recognise that the proposed lines on the north side of the wynd will, for the most part, reinforce current custom and practice where the majority of residents park on the south side of the wynd.  However, given there is insufficient on-street parking to accommodate all of the residents who live on the wynd and I must insist those affected residents are able to apply for residents’ permits permitting them to park on the High Street.

I am also disappointed that no additional restrictions have been proposed for West End Gardens.  I understand additional restrictions have previously been considered on the west side corner, where West Street meets West End Gardens, but were rejected following complaints from residents. However, as the pressure on parking has increased in recent years, we are seeing more obstructive parking in West End Gardens than was previously the case and I, along with many residents, consider additional restrictions to be necessary.  If it is not possible to include these in the proposed TRO, I would ask that urgent consideration is given to bringing forward and additional TRO to address these concerns.

Finally, I wish to comment on Bridge Street. I must point out from the outset that I currently live at the east end of Bridge Street, although none of the proposed new restrictions are planned for outside or near my home.

I am in favour of the proposed new restrictions on both north and south sides of the street underneath the viaduct and flanking the entrance to Bridge Court. I am also broadly in favour of the new restrictions on the south side of the western end of Bridge Street, to replace the current keep clear markings.  I have however been contacted by residents who have asked whether the restrictions need to extend as far east as is proposed and whether these could be reduced in order to create one or two additional parking spaces. I should be grateful if this request could be considered and a response issued.

Finally, I approve of the proposed new restrictions on Atlas Wynd and would thank officers for including these at the eleventh hour in response to requests from residents of Atlas Wynd, myself and Councillor Andrew Sherris.

Yours sincerely,

Cllr Mark Chatburn

Yarm Parking Tax consultation to commence tomorrow

I have this evening been informed (not by Stockton Council, but by the Northern Echo!) that the statutory consultation for the introduction of the council's parking tax is to commence tomorrow, Thursday 27th June 2013.

Stockton Council leader, Labour's Bob Cook, milking Yarm the cash cow.

As a road traffic order (RTO) is required before the council can implement its parking tax, the council is required by law to consult on the proposals for a period of 21 days. The consultation is not to do with the principle of introducing parking charges - the last one, in 2009, demonstrated widespread opposition to the plans so the council has refused to ask residents their opinion since - but merely the specific details of implementation.

I am also led to believe that plans to impose hundreds of metres of new double yellow lines throughout the town centre have been reincarnated and will form a part of the consultation. Whilst some additional parking restrictions are necessary and to be welcomed, we will have to wait and see how sensible and proportionate the current proposals are.

Whilst I have not yet been able to double check the details with council officers, it is understood that we have been successful in ensuring a minimum of 30 minutes free parking on the High Street.  The charging structure beyond this is believed to be £1 for the next two hours, and £1 for each hour thereafter.

If I was feeling generous, I suppose it is worth paying credit to the council for at least not holding the consultation entirely within the school holidays, but I am not feeling generous. Such a small concession is akin to the executioner allowing you a final cigarette.

I will keep residents informed of further details as and when I receive them. Hopefully we won't have to rely on the Northern Echo for further information moving forward, but I won't be holding.

Yarm parking tax promises chaos...

Last Thursday, Stockton Council's Labour / Ingleby Barwick 'independents' coalition agreed to push ahead with their ill-conceived plans to impose their unwanted parking tax in Yarm.

Stockton Council would have us believe that they are doing this for the benefit of Yarm, both by addressing the congestion problems through Yarm High Street and by boosting visitor numbers thereby benefitting trade.  Yes, you read that right - Stockton Council believe that by taxing visitors to the town, more will want to come. Presumably in the same way as increasing rail fares persuades more of us to travel by train...

At least one Labour politician was sufficiently honest/careless to announce the real reason for the Council's plans...

But all this has been said before.  Were the risks to businesses on the High Street not sufficiently obvious as to constitute common sense, the press coverage has been considerable.

One area that has been less well publicised is the effect that the parking tax will have on residents living in the streets and wynds in close proximity to the High Street.

Whilst the eye was inevitably drawn to the paragraphs relating directly to charging in the report presented to cabinet last Thursday, there is one towards the end of the report which merits closer scrutiny:

"There will be a need to bring forward a range of parking restrictions to address existing indiscriminate parking and to manage the inevitable displacement that will occur as a result of introducing charging".

In other words, at the same time as implementing their parking tax Stockton Council intend to take Yarm back to the future with the reintroduction of their 2010/11 plans to swathe large parts of the town with double yellow lines and other parking restrictions, particularly along West Street.

There is no denying that there is ostensibly a need for some additional restrictions along West Street - anybody familiar with the area will be aware of the selfish and downright dangerous actions of some motorists, particularly those parking under the viaduct at the Bentley Wynd end of West Street - but only a fool would neither anticipate nor fear the promised proposals being virtually a carbon copy of the plans kicked into the long grass by the Council in 2011.

Not only will we see the "inevitable displacement" of vehicles as a direct consequence of the parking tax (and not just from the High Street - charging is also intended for the two SBC car parks, at The Old Market and Castle Dyke Wynd), but if the promised parking restrictions prove to be as draconian as intended previously, further displacement of vehicles from West Street, Bridge Street, and others is guaranteed.

There is only one word to describe the cumulative impact of these hair-brained proposals - chaos.

Yarm Town Council will inevitably lead the way in co-ordinating the protests at these proposals, as done so admirably by Councillor Jason Hadlow in the run-up to 2011's successful Appeals & Complaints Committee meeting.

However, without elections to the Borough Council due within a matter of weeks of the anticipated meetings this time around to focus the minds of Labour councillors (as in 2011), I fear the worst.

Why Napoleon was right about Stockton Council...

From controversial parking charges to wonky lines, barely a month seems to pass without the parking arrangements on Yarm High Street hitting the headlines. However, one story regarding the most recent battleground – over the re-location of two signs informing motorists of the extent of the disk zone – caught my eye in particular.

A bit of background. After being issued with a penalty notice for not displaying a valid parking disk, Jason Hadlow – the chairman of Yarm Town Council – appealed to the Parking Adjudicator. After much consideration, the adjudicator found in Mr Hadlow’s favour, ruling the relevant signage to be “inadequate” and “ambiguous”. In the days that followed, two roadsigns were moved from their kerbside location, into the middle of two parking spaces.

 

 

 

Whilst on the face of it this tale is ostensibly another amusing one of Stockton Council’s incompetence, the comments of an unnamed “spokesman for Stockton Council” as reported in today’s Darlington & Stockton Times are altogether more worrying, being so disingenuous as to be downright misleading.

 

The spokesman said, “Two new parking signs have been put up in Yarm High Street. This is a direct consequence of the recent parking adjudicator’s decision. It is unfortunate that we have to reduce the spaces but it is a necessary consequence of the adjudicator’s ruling.”

 

Firstly, no new signs have been put up; instead, two existing signs were relocated. Okay, a trivial point, but not a great start by the spokesman.

 

Secondly, we come to the claim that the change was a direct consequence of the adjudicator’s decision. Whilst there is no doubt that the signs’ previous locations were criticised by the adjudicator, to blame him for their current location is a gross misrepresentation.

 

The parking adjudicator has no powers to direct a council to do anything. His authority starts and finishes with the ability to quash penalty notices; nothing more, nothing less.

 

What he actually said was, “Whilst it is not my place to make recommendations about the signing one obvious step to improve it would be to ensure that the Zone entry signs are placed next to the carriageway where they are more visible”.

 

No mention of where they should be moved to, and certainly no suggestion that there was any need to remove two parking spaces whilst doing so.  The blame for this latest act of lunacy lies squarely with Stockton Council.

 

Could they have been placed, as the adjudicator suggested, next to the carriageway, alongside the existing parking spaces thereby preserving them? Of course they could. Why weren’t they? Draw your own conclusions.

 

I don’t however subscribe to the view of many, that the signs were moved by Stockton Council’s Technical Services out of malice, in some childish act of revenge at Councillor Hadlow’s victory.

 

Instead, I think it far more likely that Napoleon Bonaparte probably hit the nail on the head, when he said, “Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence.”

Parking stitch up

Last night, Stockton Council’s executive scrutiny committee decided to ignore the concerns of traders and residents alike. When given the opportunity to refer the decision to implement parking charges in Yarm back to cabinet for further consideration, the committee elected (by 9 votes to 7) not to do so.

In the spirit of transparency, the 9 councillors who voted against referring the matter back to cabinet are:

Cllr Nigel Cooke               Labour             

Cllr Bob Gibson                Labour             

Cllr Miss Barbara Inman    Labour             

Cllr Mohammed Javed       Labour              

Cllr Eileen Johnson           Labour             

Cllr Paul Kirton                 Labour             

Cllr Mrs Jean O’Donnell     Labour             

Cllr Ross Patterson           Ingleby Barwick Independents

Cllr Mick Stoker                Labour      

       

Despite the lack of any consultation with residents having occurred, despite the obvious risk to the continued success of the business on our High Street, despite the protestations of ward councillors from not just Yarm but also Eaglescliffe, and against the wishes of Yarm Town Council, the aforementioned councillors still voted against referring the matter back for reconsideration.

Now, the eagle-eyed amongst you will have noticed a pattern in the above list.

What is, and should have been considered as, an apolitical ward issue has unfortunately been treated as a political football by all 8 Labour councillors that sit on the committee and one of their new coalition buddies from Ingleby Barwick. They have ignored the concerns of residents and traders alike for the sake of petty politics. 

They should all be ashamed of themselves.

Whilst some Labour councillors will undoubtedly continue to try to pretend that the decision to introduce parking charges in Yarm was made in an attempt to alleviate the town’s parking difficulties, let me share a comment with you made by Labour MP Alex Cunningham on Twitter recently:

As is now abundantly clear, the council’s proposals have nothing to do with solving Yarm’s long-standing issues and everything to do with filling the council’s coffers.

Whilst this battle to prevent Stockton and Labour's latest attempts to milk the cash cow that is Yarm has been lost, I somehow doubt this will be an end to the matter...

Say Nay To Pay And Display

Last week, Stockton Borough Council's Labour / IBIS coalition cabinet voted to introduce parking charges to Yarm High Street.

Stockton council would like me to stress that their argument for replacing the existing disk controlled zone with parking meters is not to raise revenue (honestly, they kept straight faces when they said it and everything), but because the great British public don't have the wit to understand the nuanced technicalities of a disk controlled zone.

As though this wasn't bad enough, they are looking to install meters virtually the full length of the High Street, with the loss of the vast majority of the 127 unrestricted parking spaces relied on by residents of the High Street.

With Stockton's annual madcap parking proposals in danger of becoming an unwelcome tradition, you could be excused for thinking that the situation in Yarm was complicated. That there was no straightforward solution.  Well you'd be wrong.  Both the problem and the answer are breathtakingly simple.

Problem:  Yarm doesn't have enough parking spaces
Solution:  Create more parking spaces

Forgive my being glib, but that really is the crux of the matter.  Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying the solution is simple to implement.  Where could we put a new car park?  From where would we access it?  Who will pay for it?  These are difficult problems to solve - if they weren't, this matter would have been put to bed years ago - but that does not detract from the fact that the answer is simply to create more parking spaces.

Meandering back to the point of the article, I'll put this equally simply:

Stockton's proposals to introduce a tax on those visitors to Yarm that had the audacity to drive there won't achieve anything but deter shoppers from visiting Yarm.  Granted, that's one way of solving traffic congestion in Yarm but it has the one minor drawback that we would likely end up with a High Street which looks something like Stockton's in no time at all.

As for their plan to convert free long stay spaces into charged short stay spaces, Stockton would have you believe that this will boost business, by encouraging and enabling more shoppers to visit the town. My response to that is...well, just re-read the previous paragraph.  Not only that, in their misguided attempt to help the High Street what they will actually do is ensure that some 100 residents won't be able to park anywhere near their own home.

Furthermore, 100 or so people that work on the High Street that rely on these spaces to park during the day will just park elsewhere.  On West Street. On Worsall Road.  In Eaglescliffe.  Stockton would have you believe this won't happen, but it already does - ask the residents of Butts Lane, Eaglescliffe how much they enjoy Yarm Fair week.

I could go on - the report to cabinet was so full of holes one would need to write something of a similar length to correct it - but I won't.  Put simply, these recommendations are the veritable unholy trinity - they're bad for residents, bad for traders, bad for commuters.

I'll leave you with one last thought.  Mary "queen of shops" Portas recently completed her research into the state of the nation's High Streets and has made a number of suggestions.  One of these was to call for councils to "implement free controlled parking schemes".

It's not clear if she based her recommendation on the current arrangement in Yarm specifically, but we would already seem to be exactly what she's recommending.  But you never know, I suppose it's possible that Mary Portas' recommendations (and common sense) are wrong, and that Stockton Borough Council know what they are doing...

I'm back

After a truly hectic few months, my redesigned blog is here and ready to go.

As predicted in my very first post, parking in Yarm is well and truly back in the news (see here).  Stockton council's daft, sorry, draft proposals for 2011 - parking charges.  Well it was only a matter of time before the Labour led council looked to bleed that particular stone wasn't it?

I will post my take on the plans tomorrow.