It is accepted that the previous parking arrangements were
unacceptable for residents, businesses, shopkeepers, shoppers and commuters. However, the scheme as it stands will not resolve the problem. As all are aware, parking difficulties have actually increased due to the current two house restriction having no teeth.
Residents are offered permits at £25 per year when in fact residents' cars form a significant part of the problem. It is unreasonable to charge £25 for a resident car and £220 for a business car which will spend less time parked than a resident's. I consider a fair uniform charge should apply for residents and businesses. I wonder how many residents will then take issue with the CPZ?
If the CPZ must be introduced I am more than willing to pay a
reasonable parking charge. However, £220 for a single area and £420 for all areas per year is not reasonable.
In today's world cars are part of life and until alternative, adequate and efficient transport systems (public or otherwise) are provided we will not solve the problem. I see the proposed bus lane along Seaside has been blocked which is appropriate given that most buses I follow (in my car) have at best three people on board.
In my opinion Eastbourne Borough Council has a part to play, given its planning officers seem to agree to sizeable historic buildings being converted to multiple occupancy with little or no regard for parking.
Planning permission has been given recently for two conversions in Chiswick Place where cars can only be parked in the highway. If a three/four storey building is to be converted to four/five/six flats the number of cars will increase from two-three up to 10-12.
As we are all aware, the majority of buildings in Eastbourne do not have off street parking. Eastbourne Borough Council should only allow conversion if adequate provision for off-street parking is made. Further to this new buildings are being built (eg the new Cultural Centre) which has been built on a car park, again with no provision for additional off street parking.
I recollect that the CPZ was only to be introduced once adequate and appropriate public transport, park and ride schemes, vehicle sharing schemes, etc had been improved or introduced. I am not aware that this has been considered let alone actioned.
Richard Sheppard, EAR Sheppard Consulting Civil and Structural Engineers, Chiswick Place, Eastbourne