1.1 The proposal at this location is to extend the existing school keep clear covering the pedestrian crossing and change the time period from during school term time to except August.
1.2 Two objections have been received, one of which is to all of the proposed changes to school keep clear on the grounds that the extensions remove parking and the restriction will be enforceable when the school is closed. The other objection is on the grounds that the proposal increases the area which vehicles cannot park and will encourage motorists to block driveways. Two items of support have been received on this proposal.
1.3 The proposal follows a need to review all school keep clear markings within Hastings Borough. The legend ‘during school term time’ is no longer permitted, the existing marking is not a prescribed length specified within the TSRGD. Civil Enforcement Officers can, at the request of a resident whose access is blocked, issue a penalty charge notice to a vehicle parked across a dropped kerb and blocking access.
1.4 Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
1.5 Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposal as advertised.
2.1 The proposal at this location is to extend the school keep clear in Whatlington Way replacing part of the single yellow line, changing the time period of the school keep clear from during school term time to except August.
2.2 One objection has been received, on the grounds that there is nowhere for parents to park.
2.3 The proposal follows a need to review all school keep clears within Hastings Borough. The legend ‘during school term time’ is not permitted, and the existing marking does not meet one the required lengths specified within the TSRGD.
2.4 Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn. The proposal does not remove potential parking places during the school drop-off and pick-up times.
2.5 At the time of writing, Councillor Scott has not replied to provide their views regarding the recommendation.
2.6 Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposal as advertised.
3.1 The proposal at this location is to introduce a single yellow line and no loading Mon to Fri between 8.00am-9.30am and 2.30pm-4.00pm, relocate the school keep clear to the edge of the carriage way, and change time period from during school term time to except August.
3.2 Two objections have been received, one on the grounds that the restrictions are only needed occasionally and will be enforceable during school holidays. The other objection is that the restrictions do not extend into the private street.
3.3 The proposal follows a need to review all school keep clear markings within Hastings Borough. The legend ‘during school term time’ is not permitted within the TSRGD. Due to the layout of Middle Road a yellow line and loading ban has been proposed instead of a school keep clear. It is not possible to install restrictions on a private street without an agreement with the landowner(s).
3.4 Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
3.5 Councillor Hay has confirmed his support for the proposal to be implemented.
3.6 Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposal as advertised.
4.1 The proposal at this location is to extend the existing double yellow lines replacing part of the single yellow line (Mon-Fri 8am-4pm) on the west side and to extend the school keep clear on both ends replacing part of the single yellow line on the east side.
4.2 One objection has been received on the grounds that extending the existing marking will have a significant impact on children with special educational needs attending the school.
4.3 The proposal follows a need to review all school keep clear markings within the Hastings Borough. The legend ‘during school term time’ is no longer permitted, and the existing marking does not meet one the required lengths specified within the TSRGD.
4.4 Having considered the objection, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn. A shorter permitted length of school keep clear would either not cover a crossing point sufficiently or would allow a vehicle to stop on the bend restricting sightlines.
4.5 At the time of writing, Councillor Hilton has not replied to provide their views regarding the recommendation.
4.6 Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposal as advertised.
5.1 The proposal at this location is to change the time period of the school keep clear from during school term time to except August.
5.2 Six objections have been received from local residents on the grounds that the proposed restriction will be enforceable during school holidays and does not benefit residents.
5.3 The proposal follows a need to review all school keep clear markings within the Hastings Borough. The legend ‘during school term time’ is not permitted.
5.4 Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
5.5 At the time of writing, Councillor Hilton has not replied to provide their views regarding the recommendation.
5.6 Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposal as advertised.
6.1 The proposal at this location is to relocate the north side school keep clear and extend the south side, and to change the time period of the school keep clear from during school term time to except August.
6.2 Nine objections have been received, two of which have been withdrawn. The grounds for the objections are that the restriction will be enforceable during school holidays and does not benefit residents.
6.3 The proposal follows a need to review all school keep clear markings within the Hastings Borough. The legend ‘during school term time’ is not permitted. The relocation and extension of the school keep clear is due to reports of vehicles using these areas during school drop off and pick up. Four of the objections are about the restrictions being enforceable during school holidays and do not oppose the relocation and extension of the school keep clear.
6.4 Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
6.5 At the time of writing, Councillor Webb has not replied to provide their views regarding the recommendation.
6.6 Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposal as advertised.
7.1 The proposal at this location is to change the time period of the school keep clear from during school term time to except August.
7.2 Three objections have been received from local residents, two objections are on the grounds that the restriction will be enforceable during school holidays, the other objection requested clarification of the proposal.
7.3 The proposal follows a need to review all school keep clear markings within the Hastings Borough. The legend ‘during school term time’ is not permitted.
7.4 Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
7.5 Councillor Marlow-Eastwood has confirmed her support for the proposal to be implemented.
7.6 Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposal as advertised.
8.1 The proposal at this location is to install additional school keep clear markings Mon-Fri 8-9.30am and 2.30-4pm.
8.2 Fourteen objections have been received, two of which have been withdrawn. Six objections are on the grounds that a pedestrian crossing is required. One objection is on the grounds that the proposal does not extend far enough. Two objections are on the grounds that disabled people/children will not be able to access the school. One objection is on the grounds that there is no location for blue badge holders to park. One objection is on the grounds that parents should be able to pick up their children closer to the school. One objection is on the grounds that it does not increase safety. Fourteen items of support have been received on this proposal.
8.3 The proposal follows a request to prevent vehicles from stopping on the yellow lines. Requests received for a pedestrian crossing have been passed to the Traffic and Safety team for consideration.
8.4 Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn. Blue badge holders can park for up to three hours on a double yellow line with the clock set to show the time of arrival, where it does not cause an obstruction and there are no loading restrictions in force.
8.5 At the time of writing, Councillor Hilton has not replied to provide their views regarding the recommendation.
8.6 Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposal as advertised.
9.1 The proposal at this location to is change the time period of the school keep clear from during school term time to except August.
9.2 Two objections have been received, one of which has been withdrawn. The remaining objection is on the grounds that the proposed restriction will be enforceable while the school is closed, and the purpose of the proposal is to generate income. One item of support has been received.
9.3 The proposal follows a need to review all school keep clear markings within the Hastings Borough. The legend ‘during school term time’ is not permitted.
9.4 Having considered the objection, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
9.5 Councillor Marlow-Eastwood has confirmed her support for the proposal to be implemented.
9.6 Recommendation: To not uphold the objection and install the proposal as advertised.
10.1 The proposal at this location is extend double yellow lines along the northwest side of the crescent including the turning head on the southeast side, to extend one and formalise two of the advisory blue badge holders only bays.
10.2 Four objections were received, one of which has changed to support and one has withdrawn. The grounds for the one of the remaining two objections are that the proposed extent of double yellow lines is more than needed, the other objection raises concern over displacement of parking. Four items of support have been received on this proposal.
10.3 The proposal follows requests from residents for yellow lines, due to vehicles parking on the verge preventing waste collection, deliveries, emergency vehicles, etc. Vehicles also park at the dropped kerb preventing pedestrian access. A comment at the informal stage noted the advisory bays are not respected, a neighbour consultation was conducted to establish which bays are needed. Upon investigation one of the required bays must be extended in order to formalise the bay.
10.4 Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn. Reducing the extent of the double yellow lines would allow vehicles to stop in the turning circle and encourage a vehicle to block the pedestrian dropped kerb.
10.5 At the time of writing, Councillor Hilton has not replied to provide their views regarding the recommendation.
10.6 Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposal as advertised.
11.1 The proposal at this location is to install double yellow lines along Croft Road and its junctions with Bembrook Road and Collier Road.
11.2 One objection has been received from a local resident on the grounds that there is a high demand for parking, that parked vehicles reduce the speed of vehicles and the amount the road is used, and that proposal money should be spent on road maintenance. Two items of support were received on this proposal.
11.3 The proposal follows a request from a local resident for junction protection markings.
11.4 Having considered the objection, and the items of support, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
11.5 At the time of writing, Councillor Hilton has not replied to provide their views regarding the recommendation.
11.6 Recommendation: To not uphold the objection and install the proposal as advertised.
12.1 The proposal at this location is to introduce no loading along Cornfield Terrace and Bohemia Road, its junctions with Chapel Park Road and St Pauls Road, and to introduce a Footway ban along part of Bohemia Road.
12.2 3 objections have been received, 2 of which have been withdrawn. The remaining objection is on the grounds that they wish for a footway ban in another location outside of the proposals.
12.3 The proposal follows a request to prevent vehicles from obstructing access to Cornfield Terrace. On further investigation it was found that vehicles are parking in Bohemia Road close to the pedestrian crossing and its junctions with Cornfield Terrace and St Pauls Road.
12.4 Having considered the objection, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn. The objection has no relevance to the current proposal but will be considered as part of the next review.
12.5 At the time of writing, Councillor Webb has not replied to provide their views regarding the recommendation.
12.6 Recommendation: To not uphold the objection and install the proposal as advertised.
13.1 The proposal at this location is to replace a section of permit holders only by installing double yellow lines.
13.2 One objection has been received on the grounds that it is a waste of public money, the restriction is not necessary and would rather money was spent on enforcement of existing parking restrictions.
13.3 The proposal follows a request from a local resident to reduce the permit holders only section as they have difficulty exiting the off-street parking when a vehicle is parked close to the access, which can also block access to the water meters and taps for four properties.
13.4 Having considered the objection, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
14.5 Recommendation: To not uphold the objection and install the proposal as advertised.
14.1 The proposal at this location is to extend the existing double yellow lines at the junction.
14.2 Two objections from local residents have been received, one on the grounds that it is not needed. The other objection states that the issue is only for a short period each day and any imposed restrictions would affect visitors. The same objection also refers to parking permits, which are not being proposed at this site. One item of support has been received on this proposal.
14.3 The proposal follows two requests, one to ensure access as there is a dropped kerb in Coghurst Road near to the junction which is often ignored. The other request was to extend the lines in The Ridge due to safety concerns for vehicles existing number 32/34 The Ridge. Reports have also been received of vehicles parking on the pavement between the junction.
14.4 Having considered the objections, although the pedestrian dropped kerb can be enforced without yellow lines, motorists may not know they are parking in contravention. As The Ridge is a B Road with two reported personal injury incidents in the vicinity of the junction, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
14.5 Councillor Hay has confirmed his support for the proposal to be implemented.
14.6 Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposal as advertised.
15.1 The proposal at this location is to replace the inner side existing pay and display only bay with pay and display and permit holders, extending the operational times of bays from 9am-6pm to 9am-8pm.
15.2 One objection from a local resident has been received on the grounds that the proposal has changed since the informal stage and will no longer allow permit holders to park at the location and permits should be issued to residents free of charge. Three items of support have been received on this proposal.
15.3 The proposal follows a request from a resident to increase the provision of permit holder parking.
15.4 Having considered the objection, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn. The proposal did not change between informal and formal stage. Civil parking enforcement should be self-funding. The charges for permits pay for the set up of the scheme and the ongoing costs to maintain and manage the scheme.
15.5 Recommendation: To not uphold the objection and install the proposal as advertised.
16.1 The proposal at this location is to extend the existing double yellow lines relocating the blue badge holders only and loading bay along Warrior Square, and to replace a section of bus stop clearway with double yellow lines along Grand Parade.
16.2 One objection from a local resident has been received on the grounds that the proposal removes a parking place, they are unable to find a suitable parking space after 6pm, parking is in high demand in the area, and there is insufficient monitoring to enforce restrictions.
16.2 The proposal follows requests from the Traffic and Safety team as these areas/proposals have been identified through the ‘Local Safety Scheme’ due to the number of personal injury crashes in the area.
16.4 Having considered the objection, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
16.5 At the time of writing, Councillor Webb has not replied to provide their views regarding the recommendation.
16.6 Recommendation: To not uphold the objection and install the proposal as advertised.
17.1 The proposal at this location is to extend zone H northwards in Lower Park Road.
17.2 Nine objections have been received, two of which have been withdrawn, one of which changed to support. Two of the objections support the proposal but request consideration to increase the number of resident permits per household. Four of the objections are on the grounds that it would make it difficult to visit Alexandra Park. One objection is on the grounds that the proposal does not include double yellow lines for one of the accesses to the park. Four items of support have been received on this proposal.
17.3 The proposal follows a petition signed by 43 local residents to consider extending the zone.
17.4 Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn. The proposal has been designed to accommodate visitors to the park by proposing shared use bays allowing visitors to park in the bays for up to 2 hours.
17.5 Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposal as advertised.
18.1 The proposal at this location is to replace the blue badge holders only bay with resident permit holders or time limited Mon to Sat 9am-6pm max stay 2 hours no return within 2 hours.
18.2 One objection has been received from a local resident, making a new request to consider extending the hours of operation of the bays to 8pm.
18.3 The proposal follows a report that the sign was missing. A neighbour consultation was carried out to establish if the bay was needed. One response was received for the bay to remain, but despite follow up correspondence the requester did not provide any documentation or respond further.
18.4 Having considered the objection, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn. The request to extend the hours of operation will be considered as part of the next review.
18.5 Recommendation: To not uphold the objection and install the proposal as advertised.
19.1 The proposal at this location is to replace existing pay and display only bays (9am-6pm, maximum stay 2 hours, no return within 4 hours) to permit holders or pay and display (9am-8pm, maximum stay 2 hours, no return within 2 hours).
19.2 Two objections have been received, one of which has been withdrawn. The grounds for the objection are extending the time of the restriction is a money making exercise. Two items of support have been received on this proposal.
19.3 The proposal follows a request to increase the provision of parking for permit holders.
19.4 Having considered the objection, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn. Civil parking enforcement should be self-funding. The charges for permits pay for the setup of the scheme and the ongoing costs to maintain and manage the scheme.
19.5 Recommendation: To not uphold the objection and install the proposal as advertised.
20.1 The proposal at this location is to replace the single yellow line 8am-6pm with a double yellow near to the junction and to change the existing loading bay 8am-6pm to at any time.
20.2 One objection has been received, on the grounds that after 6pm the free parking is useful for people visiting the amenities within the area.
20.3 The proposal follows a request to change the operational time of the loading bay to meet the needs of White Rock Theatre.
20.4 Having considered the objection, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn. Larger vehicles using the loading bay and parked vehicles opposite could hinder the traffic flow near the junction.
20.5 Recommendation: To not uphold the objection and install the proposal as advertised.