1.1 The proposal at this location is to install no waiting Mon-Sat 7am-7pm.
1.2 Four objections have been received, on the grounds that the amount of parking spaces will be reduced, and that parking is already difficult around the estate, this will cause inconvenience for residents and that the proposal will not solve the current problems.
1.3 The proposal follows a request from the bus company due to parked vehicles creating a tighter width area for the buses. Following a survey carried out on the bus by the bus Civil Enforcement Office (CEO) it was reported that the bus cannot pass through at times, needs to deviate their route and there was damage to a bus once on the journey around the estate. Following other site visits to the area it was found that there is not enough road width for larger vehicles to pass when there are vehicles parked on both sides of the road. Feedback has been received from the refuse and recycling team that access for their vehicles is very difficult in the area. This proposal will help to facilitate the bus journey, increase safety and allow larger vehicles to pass through whilst still allowing residents to park outside of the operational hours.
1.4 Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
1.5 At the time of writing, Councillor Maples has not replied to provide their views regarding the recommendation.
1.6 Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposal as advertised.
2.1 The proposal at this location is to install no waiting Mon-Sat 7am-7pm.
2.2 Four objections have been received, on the grounds that the amount of parking spaces will be reduced, and that parking is already difficult around the estate, this will cause inconvenience for residents and that the proposal will not solve the current problems.
2.3 The proposal follows a request from the bus company due to parked vehicles creating a tighter width area for the buses. Following a survey carried out on the bus by the bus CEO it was reported that the bus cannot pass through at times when there are vehicles parked on both sides of road with the buses needing to deviate their route. There was also damage to the bus once on the journey around the estate. Following other site visits to the area Officers found that there is not enough road width for larger vehicles to pass when there are vehicles parked on both sides. Feedback was also received from the refuse and recycling team that access is very difficult in the area, especially all along Crisp Road and by the junction with Blois Road. The current proposal will facilitate the bus journey, increase safety and allow larger vehicles to pass through whilst allowing residents to park outside of the operational hours.
2.4 Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
2.5 At the time of writing, Councillor Maples 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 extend double yellow lines on the west and south side of the road.
3.2 Six objections have been received, on the grounds that yellow lines will cause vehicle displacement, reduce available parking spaces for residents and that the proposal does not resolve the current issues with the Police HQ using the road to park. 2 of the objectors mention that a permit scheme would be more appropriate to address the current issues around the estate. One of the objections has since been withdrawn. Three items of support were received.
3.3 The proposal follows a request from the bus company and a resident due to the parked vehicles creating a reduced width for the buses with parked vehicles on both sides of the road causing difficulties for larger vehicles. According to the resident’s comments an ambulance could not access the properties and pets are being run over. Site visits were carried out at various times on different days, and it was noted that when vehicles are parked on both sides of the road it creates a bottle neck with reduced widths that makes it impossible for any larger vehicle to pass through. Whilst it is acknowledged that some displacement of vehicles may occur the proposed double yellow lines will improve the traffic flow in the area,increase safety for all road users, and provide better access for larger vehicles including emergency services.
3.4 Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
3.5 At the time of writing, Councillor Denis has confirmed his support for the proposal to be implemented as advertised.
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 on the south side of Lee Road.
4.2 One objection was received on the grounds that the council should provide dropped kerbs and white lines instead of banning vans from parking on street.
4.3 The proposal follows a request made by the bus company due to vehicles parking on both sides creating a reduced width for the buses to pass outside of the newsagents. The objector did not leave any information for a response to be sent. Extending the yellow lines by 10 metres will still allow vehicles to use the lay-by outside of the newsagent whilst enabling larger vehicles to safely navigate the road and provide better access for emergency services and other larger vehicles.
4.4 Having considered the objection, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
4.5 At the time of writing, Councillor Maples 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 replace a section of the permit holders only bay, Mon-Sat 9am-5pm, with a 6.6 metre disabled persons' badge holders parking place at all times.
5.2 Four objections have been received. One of the objections supports additional disabled spaces but parking spaces should not be lost for residents and spaces should be increased as a whole. One of the objections is on the grounds that parking is already in high demand and the proposal will remove an additional residents’ parking space and that there is currently one other disabled bay on this street. One of the objections is on the grounds that on street parking should be kept only for residents and no more residents’ permits should be sold. The other objection is on the grounds of the overall amount of lost parking spaces of other people within the community to non-blue badge holders.
5.3 Whilst it is acknowledged that the permit holders bay will be reduced, the proposal follows a request from a resident of the area who meets the eligibility criteria for an on street disabled parking bay.
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 Denis has confirmed his support for the proposal to be implemented as advertised.
5.6 Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposal as advertised.
6.1 The proposal at this location is to replace a section of the permit holders parking place Mon-Sat 8am-8pm, with a 6.6 metre disabled persons' badge holders parking place at all times.
6.2 Four objections have been received. One objection is that the provision of extra disabled bays should be provided on level ground. One of the objections is on the grounds that on street parking should be kept only for residents and no more residents’ permits should be sold. Two objections are on the grounds that parking is already in high demand and the proposal will remove available spaces for residents.
6.3 Whilst it is acknowledged that the permit holders bay will be reduced, the proposal follows a request from a resident of the area who meets the eligibility criteria for an on street disabled parking bay.
6.4 Having considered the objection, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
6.5 At the time of writing, Councillor Denis has confirmed his support for the proposal to be implemented as advertised.
6.6 Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposal as advertised.
7.1 The proposal at this location is to install new school keep clear zigzags Mon-Fri 8am-9.30am and 2.30pm-4pm except August.
7.2 One objection has been received that the proposed restrictions are inadequate and will not prevent congestion, and this will not increase safety for children.
7.3 The proposal follows a request from the school for school keep clear markings to stop vehicles blocking the access to the school and increase safety. Installing the school keep clear will make the entrance to the school safer for all road users and the children attending this school.
7.4 Having considered the objection, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
7.5 At the time of writing, Councillor Osborne has not replied to provide their views regarding the recommendation.
7.6 Recommendation: To not uphold the objection and install the proposal as advertised.
8.1 The proposal at this location is to formalise an existing advisory disabled persons' badge holders parking place.
8.2 One objection has been received on the grounds that some disabled bays on Lawes and Evelyn Avenues are unused or misused, with one treated as a private space. Parking in the area is in high demand so unused disabled bays should be removed before new disabled bays are installed.
8.3 The proposal follows a request from a blue badge holder resident as the bay is not being respected by vehicles without a blue badge. The applicant has been assessed and meets the eligibility criteria for the provision of an on-street disabled persons' badge holders parking place.
8.4 Having considered the objection, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
8.5 At the time of writing, Councillor Osborne has not replied to provide their views regarding the recommendation.
8.6 Recommendation: To not uphold the objection and install the proposal as advertised.
9.1 The proposal at this location is to formalise an existing advisory disabled persons' badge holders parking place.
9.2 One objection has been received on the grounds that some disabled bays on Lawes and Evelyn Avenues are unused or misused, with one treated as a private space. Parking in the area is in high demand so unused disabled bays should be removed before new disabled bays are installed.
9.3 The proposal follows a request from a blue badge holder resident as the bay is not being respected by vehicles without a blue badge. The applicant has been assessed and meets the eligibility criteria for the provision of an on-street disabled persons' badge holders parking place.
9.4 Having considered the objection, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
9.5 At the time of writing, Councillor Osborne has not replied to provide their views regarding the recommendation.
9.6 Recommendation: To not uphold the objection and install the proposal as advertised.
10.1 The proposal at this location is to install new No waiting at any time, extend the existing No waiting at any time and install a bus stop.
10.2 Eleven objections were received. Eight of which supported the proposals but requested additional restrictions and were treated as objections. One objects to the proposal for a bus stop clearway on the grounds that the markings will cover the space in front of their driveway and this will not successfully deter vehicles parking over their driveway compared to a no waiting at any time restriction and requests the no waiting at any time on the opposite side to be extended too. One objection is on the grounds that the no waiting at any time on the opposite side of the bus stop should be extended as currently buses drive over the verge and the objector’s driveway and damage the grass verge when there is a vehicle blocking the road. One objection is on the grounds that the area around the bus stop should be widened, and a 20 MPH should be considered. One objection is on the grounds that the no waiting at any time opposite the bus stop should be longer. One objection is on the grounds that resident permits should be available for residents of Telscombe Cliffs Way and a double red line be considered. One objection is on the grounds that parking issues will be moved to Warren Way and Tye View. Five of the objections have been withdrawn. Support was received, from Brighton & Hove buses, Telscombe residents and Telscombe Town Council.
10.3 The proposal follows a request from a resident of the area and Telscombe Town Council due to areport from Telscombe Residents Association about buses driving along St Peters Avenue struggling to turn into Telscombe Cliffs Way due to the parked cars. The County Council’s Passenger Transport team requested that bus stop clearway markings, with an extension to the existing no waiting at any time restriction and a new no waiting at any time restriction at the junction, to facilitate the bus route.
10.4 Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
10.5 At the time of writing, Councillor Osborne 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 a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) amendment only to legally formalise the current restriction that is on the ground.
11.2 One objection has been received on the grounds that motorists should not be exploited for profit and funds should be spent responsibly.
11.3 The proposal follows a request to extend the no waiting at any time on the junction. During investigations it was noted that the restriction marked on the road and the TRO description differed slightly, this proposal will amend the TRO anomaly.
11.4 Having considered the objection, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
11.5 At the time of writing, Councillor Milligan has replied to confirm he neither supports nor objects to the recommendation.
11.6 Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposal as advertised.