Committee:                            Planning

                                                Regulatory Committee


Date:                                       17 April 2024


Report by:                              Director of Communities, Economy and Transport


Title of Report:                      Traffic Regulation Orders – Lewes Parking Review 2023-24


Purpose of Report:              To consider the objections received in response to the formal consultation on the draft Traffic Regulation Order associated with the Lewes Parking Review


Contact Officer:                    Natalie Mclean – tel. 01273 482628


Local Members:                    Sam Adeniji, Chris Collier, Johnny Denis, Carolyn Lambert, Wendy Maples, James MacCleary, Matthew Milligan, Sarah Osborne and Christine Robinson





The Planning Committee is recommended to:


1.    Not uphold the objections to the draft Order as set out in Appendix 1 of this report.

2.    Uphold the objections, in part, to the draft Order as set out in Appendix 2 of this report.

3.    Recommend to the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport that the Traffic Regulation Order be made in part.





1.            Introduction


1.1         Requests for new or for changes to existing parking and waiting restrictions in the Lewes District area are held on a priority ranking database, with those requests ranking high enough being progressed to consultation. Informal consultations ran from 22 September to 13 October 2023 to see whether there was enough public support to introduce further controls such as double yellow lines or changes to permit parking schemes in the district.


1.2         Feedback from the consultations led to formal proposals being developed. The formal consultation ran from 1 December 2023 to 5 January 2024. These formal proposals were advertised, together with the draft Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) (a copy of which is attached at Appendix 3) in the Sussex Express on 1 December 2023. Notices and copies of the relevant plans were placed on posts and lamp-columns in the affected areas. Approximately 1050 letters were delivered to local addresses and the consultation was placed on the Council’s Consultation Hub for any member of the public to comment.


1.3         Copies of the formal proposals were sent to relevant County and District Councillors, Town and Parish Councillor’s and statutory consultees including the emergency services. Copies of all supporting correspondence are available in the Members’ Room and have also been made available to Planning Committee members in electronic format.


1.4         During the formal consultation 241 items of correspondence were received. These included 175 objections and 66 items of support. Eight objections have since been withdrawn.


2.            Comments and Appraisal


2.1         Each item of correspondence has been considered individually and a summary of the objections and officer comments are included in Appendices 1 and 2. Plans and photographs showing the areas objected to are included in the Additional Information Pack


2.2         With regard to objections relating to Bishops Lane, Broad Street, Albion Street, East Street, Cleve Terrace, Court Road, Railway Lane, De Montfort Road, De Warrenne Road, Gundreda Road, Ferrers Road, Fort Road, Foundry Lane, Malling Street, Esplanade, Marine Parade, Downs View and Pelham Road as set out in Appendix 1, it is not considered that these objections provide sufficient grounds to warrant the modification or withdrawal of the proposals. The proposals are considered to provide for the most efficient use of parking space. It is considered that these objections should not be upheld. 



2.3         Following consideration of the responses, it is recommended to modify the following proposal (summarised in Appendix 2):


·         Fort Road, Newhaven – modify the proposal to withdraw the removal of the Time limited bays and continue with the TRO amendment to the existing no waiting at any time.


Officers are satisfied that the objections received to these proposals do provide sufficient grounds to warrant the withdrawal of the part of the proposal that would remove the time limited bays.


2.4         It is also recommended that all other proposals not objected to should be implemented as advertised.


3.         Conclusion and reasons for recommendations

3.1       The approach in trying to resolve objections to the Order has been to appraise the concerns raised by residents and other road users, whilst not compromising road safety or other factors. Objections on one of the sites are considered to merit the withdrawal of part of the proposal. Officers consider that, for highway and road safety reasons, the remaining objections (as set out in Appendix 1) should not be upheld and the proposals in these areas should proceed as per the draft TROs as advertised.


3.2       It is therefore recommended for the reasons set out in this report, that the Planning Committee does not uphold the objections in Appendix 1, upholds in part the objections in Appendix 2, and recommends to the Director of Communities, Economy, and Transport that the Orders be made in part.




Director of Communities, Economy and Transport