1.1 The proposal at this location is to introduce new no waiting at any time restrictions on both sides of the road in Bishops Lane.
1.2 One objection has been received from a local resident with no given reason for the objection. Sixteen items of support were received on this proposal.
1.3 The proposal follows a request from Ringmer Parish Council, to stop vehicles parking at the junction.
1.4 Officers are unable to consider the objection as no grounds for the objection have been put forward. Officers have attempted to contact the objector via letter. No reply was received therefore officers are satisfied that there are grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
1.5 At the time of writing, Councillor Denis has not replied to provide their views regarding the recommendation.
1.6 Recommendation: To not uphold the objection and install the proposal as advertised.
2.1 The proposal at this location is to replace the current Taxi only bay with Loading and unloading only Monday to Saturday 8am to 6pm.
2.2 Four objections have been received, two of which have not given any grounds for the objections. One objection was on the grounds that they will not be able to park in Broad Street with their blue badge. The remaining objection is on the grounds that they do not agree with the proposed changes. Three items of support were received, one of those from Seaford Town Council.
2.3 The proposal follows a survey carried out by the Parking team showing that the Taxi Bay is underutilised.
2.4 Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn. The survey shows that the bay is not often used by taxis, the proposal will introduce a loading bay in the area with an 8am to 6pm Monday to Saturday restriction which will allow blue badge holders to use the proposed bay for loading and unloading purposes. Outside the restriction times, the bay can be used by other vehicle users including blue badge holders. Currently blue badge holders can park for free in the Time limited bays in Broad Street and for up to three hours on the single yellow lines in Broad Street while correctly displaying their blue badge. At present, blue badge holders are not permitted to use the taxi bay during restriction hours.
2.5 Councillor Lambert has confirmed her support for the proposal to be implemented.
2.6 Recommendation: To not uphold the objection and install the proposal as advertised.
3.1 The proposal at this location is to replace the existing Permit holders or pay and display Monday to Saturday 9am to 5pm maximum stay 2 hours with Permit holders only Monday to Saturday 8am to 8pm maximum stay 2 hours and change the existing permit holders only bays from 9am to 5pm to 8am to 8pm.
3.2 Three objections have been received. One objection is on the grounds that the change of the operational times is unnecessary. One objection is on the grounds that the proposal removes available space for visitors and shoppers. The remaining objection is from Councillor Maples on the grounds that removing the pay and display parking will affect local businesses and visitors. Eight items of support were received, out of which seven are residents to East Street and Albion Street.
3.3 The proposal follows requests from residents for additional permit holders spaces and extending the operational hours as parking in the area is in high demand and residents are having difficulties parking after 5pm.
3.4 The purpose of the proposal is to increase the provision of available parking for permit holders. Increasing the operational times until 8pm will provide a greater chance for residents to find a parking space after 5pm. Visitors parking is available nearby in the High Street, East Street and Little East Street car parks.Currently there are 28 Resident permits issued in the area, with only 12 Permit holders only spaces.
3.5 By removing the pay and display in Albion Road and East Street, the number of spaces for permit holders would increase by 16 spaces. In the period between April 2023 and March 2024 there have been 173 pay and display and 599 RingGo sessions purchased in Albion Street. In East Street, 97 pay and display and 617 RingGo sessions purchased. On average, 14 purchased sessions in Albion Street and 14 purchased sessions in East Street per week. Having considered the representations made, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
3.6 At the time of writing, Councillor Denis has not replied to provide their views regarding the recommendation.
3.7 Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposal as advertised.
4.1 The proposal at this location is to replace the existing Permit holders or Pay and display Monday to Saturday 8am to 6pm maximum stay 10 hours with Permit holders only Monday to Saturday 8am to 6pm.
4.2 Twenty-three objections have been received. Eighteen objections are on the grounds that flexibility for the different types of users will be lost. Tradesmen, visitors and health workers will not be able to use the bays for short term parking and that it will cost more to use visitor, trade or healthcare permits instead of pay and display. Three objections are on the grounds that by changing the bays into permit holders only, parents will not be able to use the bays to pick up their children from Southover School. One objection is on the grounds that the proposed change is not needed. One objection is on the grounds that the changes are not needed and that the change of the operational times does not makes sense. Two items of support were received.
4.3 Parking habits and technology have changed considerably in recent years and we need to adapt and develop schemes in line with these changes. In some locations we identified areas where changes to the parking restrictions could be considered. Following work carried out by the Parking Team, Cleve Terrace was identified as one of these areas. In this area it showed the shared use bays often remained empty making the cost for the pay and display machine being unsustainable. The average cost of a pay and display machine per annum is £1,800 transaction numbers no longer make this machine viable.
4.5 The proposal will not affect Healthcare or Trade permit users as those daily permits can be used in multiple locations throughout the day. Resident visitor permits can be purchased by residents. Short term parking for school drop off and pick up in time limited bays and pay and display bays is available in St Pancras Gardens, St Pancras Road and The Course. Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
4.6 At the time of writing, Councillor Maples has not replied to provide their views regarding the recommendation.
4.7 Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposal as advertised.
5.1 The proposal at this location is to replace the existing Permit holders or Pay and display Monday to Saturday 9am to 5pm maximum stay 10 hours with Permit holders only Monday to Saturday 9am to 5pm.
5.2 Ten objections have been received and, one objection has since been withdrawn. Three objections are on the grounds that residents want to keep the available spaces for different types of visitors. Two objections are on the grounds that the restriction times need to be extended. One objection is on the grounds that by removing the pay and display parking in Court Road illegal parking will increase. One objector failed to state the grounds of their objection. One objection is on the grounds that the cost of pay and display near the town centre is outrageous and more spaces for shoppers at a reasonable price is need. The remaining objection is from Councillor Maples on the grounds that removing the pay and display parking will affect local businesses and visitors who need quick access to parking.
5.3 The proposal follows work carried out by the Parking team showing that parking habits have changed in Court Road. The team identified that pay for parking has reduced in Court Road, the number of sessions bought from the machine do not cover the average yearly costs.
5.4 In the period between April 2023 and March 2024 there have been 270 pay and display and 689 RingGo sessions purchased in Court Road, 18 sessions on average per week. The proposal will not affect Healthcare or Trade permit users as those daily permits can be used in multiple locations throughout the day and Resident visitor permits can be purchased by residents. Pay and display parking is still available nearby in Friars Walk car park with a maximum stay of 2 hours at a cost of £1.80.
5.5 In Zone D there is currently a shortage of residents bays with approximately 135 permit holders for every 100 bays. (i.e. 1.35 permit holders for every one bay). Having considered the objection, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
5.6 At the time of writing, Councillor Denis has not replied to provide their views regarding the recommendation.
5.7 Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposal as advertised.
6.1 The proposal at this location is to replace existing Permit holders or pay and display Monday to Saturday 9am to 5pm maximum stay 2 hours with Permit holders only Monday to Saturday 8am to 5pm.
6.2 Three objections were received. One objection is on the grounds that flexibility for visitors and healthcare workers will be lost. One objection is on the grounds that residents are not eligible for parking permits or resident visitor permits will lose available parking spaces. The remaining objection is from Councillor Wendy Maples on the grounds that many residents require daily care visits, and short-term parking will be lost. One item of support was received.
6.3 The proposal follows a request made for more permit spaces and a survey carried out by the Parking team showing that the cost of the pay and display machine in Railway Lane is unsustainable.
6.4 The purpose of the proposal is to increase the provision of parking for permit holders and ensure our parking schemes remain relevant and continue to support our local communities in the best ways we can. In the period between April 2023 and March 2024 there have been 16 sessions on average per week.
6.5 The proposal will not affect Healthcare permit users as those daily permits can be used in multiple locations throughout the day and Resident visitor permits can be purchased by eligible residents. Short term pay and display parking is available nearby in Friars Walk car park with maximum stay 2 hours costing £1.80 where currently in Railway Lane it costs £8.45.
6.6 In Zone D there is currently a shortage of residents bays with approximately 135 permit holders for every 100 bays. (i.e. 1.35 permit holders for every one bay) Having considered the objection,officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
6.7 At the time of writing, Councillor Denis has not replied to provide their views regarding the recommendation.
6.8 Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposal as advertised.
7.1 The proposal at this location is to replace the single Permit holders or Pay and display bay Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm with no waiting at any time.
7.2 Three objections have been received. One objection is on the grounds that parking in the area is in high demand and the removal of the bay is unnecessary. One objection is on the grounds that they do not think that the change is necessary because the issue is not only where the proposal is but where parking is on both sides of the road. The same objection mentions damage to parked vehicles caused by lorries in the past. The remaining objection is on the grounds that they could not find any information about the proposal and have objected.
7.3 The proposal follows safety concerns raised to the Parking team as emergency and other vehicles are having difficulties passing through when the parking bay is occupied.
7.4 The purpose of the proposal is to provide suitable space for larger vehicles to pass through. The proposal would resolve some of the concerns raised in the objections. Officers are unable to consider one of the objections as no grounds have been provided. Officers have attempted to contact the objector via email. No reply was received. Having considered the remaining objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
7.5 At the time of writing, Councillor Maples has not replied to provide their views regarding the recommendation.
7.6 Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposal as advertised.
8.1 The proposal at this location is to replace the existing Permit holders only with Permit holders or pay and display Monday to Saturday 9am to 5pm
8.2 Two objections have been received. One objection is on the grounds that the current pay and display bays in the area are not in use. The remaining objection is on the grounds that the change from Monday to Friday to Monday to Saturday is unnecessary.
8.3 The proposal follows a survey carried out by the Parking team showing that the bays are underutilised by permit holders.
8.4 The purpose of the proposal aims to better utilise the available kerb space by changing the use of underused bays to increase the number of spaces available for visitors of the facilities in the area such as the Hospital and B&Bs. The survey carried out by the Parking team shows that out of 12 visits, only one vehicle has been observed parked in the permit bays once.The survey also shows a higher usage of the current shared use bays compared to the permit holders only bays. Currently there are 6 Permit holders only bays, 14 Shared use bays and 0 Resident permits issued in De Warrenne Road. Any future Resident permit holders would be able to use the Shared use spaces for parking. Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
8.5 At the time of writing, Councillor Maples 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 is to replace the existing Permit holders only with permit holders or time limited 4 hours no return within 2 hours Monday to Saturday 9am to 5pm
9.2 Sixteen objections have been received, one of which has been withdrawn. Eight objections are on the grounds that it is unfair for permit holders having to pay for a residents permit while visitors are having free parking and that it would make enforcement difficult. Four objections are on the grounds that the existing restrictions are not working, and the proposal will not make a difference. Four objections are on the grounds that there is no need for a change on the current restrictions because they work as it is, free parking would also encourage people to use their vehicles more instead of public transport and that it is a waste of time and resources. Within the sixteen objections, five also objected as they do not want pay and display machines outside their properties. Two items of support were received. Support is on the grounds that the proposal would free the road for visitors. None of the supporters hold a resident’s permit.
9.3 The proposal follows a survey carried out by the Parking team showing that the bays are underutilised.
9.4 The purpose of the proposal aims to make better use of the available kerb space and to provide available short-term parking for visitors. There are 41 bays in Gundreda Road that permit holders can park in, 28 of these bays are for permit holders only. There are currently 7 resident permits issued to properties. In Gundreda Road there are 21 properties within the zone, out of which 17 have driveways. There are 48 bays in Ferrers Road that permit holders can park in, 40 of these are for permit holders only. There are 26 resident permits issued to properties. Out of the 44 properties in Ferrers Road, 43 have driveways. In the period between April 2023 and March 2024 there have been 192 purchased pay and display sessions in Ferrers Road, 4 sessions on average per week. In the period between April 2023 and March 2024 there have been 233 purchased pay and display sessions in Gundreda Road, 4 to 5 sessions on average per week. Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
9.5 At the time of writing, Councillor Maples has not replied to provide their views regarding the recommendation.
9.6 Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposal as advertised.
10.1 The proposal at this location is to replace a section of the existing no waiting at any time with a Time limited waiting bay 4 hours no return within 2 hours Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm.
10.2 Three objections have been received. Two objections are on the grounds of losing free parking. Objectors state that they are using the currently free proposed area to park their vehicles as they do not fit in their garage. One of the objections is on the grounds that the restrictions do not go far enough, they also want overnight parking and weekend restrictions. Two items of support were received, one of which is from Newhaven Cricket Club.
10.3 The proposal follows a request from the Transport Development Control team and Lewes District Council who own part of the land in question.
10.4 The purpose of this proposal is to make better use of the available kerb space and increase vehicle turnover. Due to the adverse impact of uncontrolled parking, time limited waiting bays will ensure effective enforcement. Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
10.5 Councillor MacCleary has confirmed his support for the proposal to be implemented.
10.6 Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposal as advertised.
11.1 The proposal at this location is a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) amendment to the existing restricted zone at any time.
11.2 One objection has been received from a local resident on the grounds that the proposal is unclear.
11.3 The purpose of this proposal is to rectify an anomaly with the existing TRO. The TRO for the restricted area extends only one metre from Cliffe High Street so the proposal would extend the restriction for the full length of the restricted street. The proposal follows request made by East Sussex Highways due to vehicles inappropriately accessing the lane.
11.4 Officers contacted the objector to clarify what the aim of the proposal is, but no reply was received. The officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposal to be withdrawn.
11.5 At the time of writing, Councillor Denis 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 replace a section of the Permit holders only bay with a Car club bay at any time.
12.2 One objection has been received on the grounds that one parking space will be removed and that parking in the area is in high demand.
12.3 The proposal follows a request made by the Transport Development Control team and relates to a measure that was secured as highway mitigation for a recent development.
12.4 The purpose of this proposal is to formalise the car club bay in Malling Street. The proposed car club bay is a planning requirement of the adjacent site at 68-74 Malling Street. The site used to be a garage several years ago before permission was granted for the residential scheme, now completed. The permission was granted by South Downs National Park Planning Authority. Having considered the objection, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
12.5 At the time of writing, Councillor Denis 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 the existing bays that are Time Limited 12 hours in any one day with Time limited 12 hour no return within two hours.
13.2 Fifty-five objections have been received. Fourteen objections have been received without given reason for the objections. Ten objections are on the grounds that a camper van ban is needed, four of which also request CCTV enforcement. Ten objections are on the grounds that they do not want any changes. Four objections are on the grounds that motorhomes and caravans need a designated parking area. Four objections are on the grounds that this proposal will displace the problem to adjacent roads. Four objections are on the grounds that the “no return within 2 hours” will not work and that they want “no return within 12 hours”. Three objections are on the grounds that they do not want any restrictions. Two objections are on the grounds that it will be a waste of money as there is no enforcement. One objection is on the grounds that the proposal will not solve the current problems. One objection is on the grounds that the proposal will affect local residents as they will not be able to park on the seafront for long periods. One objection is on the grounds that the proposal will deter visitors which help the local businesses in Seaford. One objection is on the grounds that a much better, more timely and comprehensive review is required. Nineteen items of support have been received but with request for stronger enforcement in the area.
13.3 The proposal follows requests to resolve the issue with the current restrictions.
13.4 The purpose of this proposal is to stop long term parking. At present the restriction allows free parking for up to 12 hours in any one day for motor vehicles. The current restriction is difficult to enforce, and requests from residents were received to seek a solution to this. The outlined proposal will allow vehicles to park for free for 12 hours before needing to move. The no return restriction would apply every day of the week and will apply to all vehicles. Officers are unable to consider fourteen of the objections as no grounds have been provided. Officers have attempted to contact the objectors but no replies have been received. Having considered the remaining objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
13.5 Councillor Lambert has confirmed her support for the proposal to be implemented.
13.6 Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposal as advertised.
14.1 The proposal at this location is a parking area of Time limited 12 hour no return within two hours and an extension of the existing no waiting at any time.
14.2 Thirty-six objections have been received. Twelve objections have been received without grounds for the objections. Four objections are on the grounds that they do not want any changes. Three objections are on the grounds that echelon parking bays for cars only is needed. Two objections are on the grounds that caravans and motorhomes need a designated parking area. Two objections are on the grounds that this proposal will displace the problem to adjacent roads. Two objections are on the grounds that they do not want any restrictions. Two objections are on the grounds that the “no return within 2 hours” will not work and that they want “no return within 12 hours”. One objection is on the grounds that the proposal will not solve the current problems. One objection is on the grounds that they want “No parking except cars or motorcycles” 22:00 to 07:00. One objection is on the grounds that it will be a waste of money as there is no enforcement. One objection questions the enforcement of the proposed changes. One objection is on the grounds that the restriction does not reflect on the environment issues and that a caravan/motorhome ban is needed. One objection is on the grounds that resident parking permits and overnight caravan/motorhomes ban is needed. One objection is on the grounds that there is no provision for motorhome parking and that the proposal will deter visitors which help the local businesses in Seaford. One objection is on the grounds that there are no issues to grant the changes and that resident parking permits are needed. One objection is on the grounds that caravan/motorhome ban is needed as well as CCTV enforcement. Five items of support have been received but with comments that in order for the restrictions to work, adequate enforcement would be needed.
14.3 The proposal follows a request from Seaford Town Council.
14.4 The purpose of this proposal is to resolve the issue of long-term parking in this area. As there are no restrictions to the area, long term parking cannot be enforced against, and requests were received from residents to seek a solution to this. The outlined proposal will still allow 12 hours free parking, but on the seaward side it will not allow the vehicle to return within 2 hours. The no return restriction would apply every day of the week and will apply to all vehicles. Officers are unable to consider fourteen of the objections as no grounds have been provided. Officers have attempted to contact the objectors, no replies have been received. Having considered the remaining objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
14.5 Councillor Lambert has confirmed her 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 formalise the existing Blue badge holders bay.
15.2 Four objections have been received from local residents. Two on the grounds that the disabled bay is mostly empty. Two objections are on the grounds that the location of the bay is not in a suitable place for the resident.
15.3 The proposal follows a request to formalise the advisory disabled bay following a request by the current applicant.
15.4 Having considered all of the objections and that the applicant meets the criteria for a formal disabled bay, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds to withdraw the proposal.
15.5 At the time of writing, Councillor Milligan has not replied to provide their views regarding the recommendation.
15.6 Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposal as advertised.
16.1 The proposal at this location is to extend the operational times of the existing taxi bay from Monday to Saturday 8am to 6pm to Monday to Sunday 8am to 6pm.
16.2 One objection has been received from a local resident with no given reason for the objection. One item of support was received from Seaford Town Council.
16.3 The proposal follows requests by Lewes District Council Licensing team and MOPs to increase the time of the taxi bay as currently drivers are having to drop off customers in the middle of the road because the bay is occupied on Sundays, and it is not enforceable.
16.4 The purpose of this proposal is to allow taxi drivers to drop off and pick up customers safely. Officers are unable to consider the objection as no grounds have been provided. Officers have attempted to contact the objector via email. No reply was received therefore officers are satisfied that there are no grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
16.5 Councillor Lambert has confirmed her support for the proposal to be implemented.
16.6 Recommendation: To not uphold the objection and install the proposal as advertised.