waverley parking review 2017 consideration of … · waverley parking review 2017 – consideration...

WAVERLEY PARKING REVIEW 2017 CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS

22 March 2018

.

SUMMARY In accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 this report has been produced as a summary of objections to the 2017 Parking review proposals. The officer recommendation is marked in bold after the last response for each location. It is necessary to refer to the map-based plans used in the advertisement. The number of objections is in bold.

Waverley Parking Review 2017 – Consideration of Objections

Waverley Parking Review 2017 - Consideration of objections – 22 March 2018

Plan No.

Road/Location

Number of objections

Status

FARNHAM NORTH

24003 Upper Weybourne Lane 2 Support 1 Comment

Proceed as advertised

24008 Alma Lane None Proceed as advertised

24011 Orchard Road (private) j/w Lower Weybourne Lane None Proceed as advertised

24126 Woodbourne j/w Weybourne Road 4 Support Proceed as advertised

FARNHAM CENTRAL

24014 Upper South View None Proceed as advertised

24014 High Park Road 1 Support Proceed as advertised

24018 Cherry Tree Close None Proceed as advertised

24018 Castle Street 1 Support 1 Comment


24023 Falkner Road None Proceed as advertised

24023 Lower Church Lane None Proceed as advertised

24023 Middle Church Lane 4 Comment Proceed as advertised

24025 Bridgefield None Proceed as advertised

24025, 24029

Broomleaf Road 3 7 Support

4 Comment


24027 West Street 1 6 Support

1 Comment


24027 Mead Lane None Proceed as advertised

24028 Red Lion Lane 2 2 Comment


24032 Arthur Road and Weydon Hill Road 2 Proceed as advertised

24038 Ridgway Road 2 1 Support



1 Comment

24110, 24112

Lynch Road 34 13 Support 4 Comment


24111 Searle Road j/w Firgrove Hill 2 Support Proceed as advertised

24112 Old Compton Lane 9 1 Support

2 Comment


24128 St James’s Avenue 1 8 Support


24128 Stoke Hills None Proceed as advertised

24132 Abbot’s Ride j/w Waverley Lane 3 7 Support

2 Comment


FARNHAM SOUTH

24122 Lodge Hill Road 6 1 Support

1 Comment

Do not proceed

24130 Fox Road 1 Comment Proceed as advertised

24130 Frensham Road None Proceed as advertised

HASLEMERE

24052 Derby Road None Proceed as advertised

24052 Weydown Road None Proceed as advertised

24053, 24055

Tanners Lane (Permits) 3 4 Support

3 Comment


24117 Shepherd’s Hill 4 Support 3 Comment


24059 Museum Hill 20 9 Support

3 Comment

Do not proceed

24055 Bridge Road 3 3 Comment



24140 Church Lane, Church Green, Church Hill, High Lane 4 2 Support

3 Comment


24140 Tanners Lane None Proceed as advertised

CRANLEIGH AND EWHURST

24101 24141

The Common 10 1 Support

2 Comment

Do not proceed

24141 Horseshoe Lane None Proceed as advertised

24101 St James’s Place 2 Proceed as advertised

24103 St Nicholas Avenue 4 11 Support 1 Comment


24103 Ewhurst Road 8 12 Support 4 Comment


24104 Overford Drive and Little Manor Gardens 4 3 Support

6 Comment


24106 Park Mead Bridge, Park Drive 5 4 Support


24147 Park Drive j/w Fettes Road 1 1 Support


WAVERLEY EASTERN VILLAGES

24115 Station Road j/w Barton Road and Eastwood Road 1 Support Proceed as advertised

24134 Barnett Lane j/w The Street 4 Support 1 Comment

Do not proceed

WAVERLEY WESTERN VILLAGES


24043 Crossways 3 2 Support

1 Comment


24045 London Road 1 4 Support


24137, 24144

Tower Road 1 Comment Proceed as advertised

24144 Tower Road j/w Tilford Road 1 Comment Proceed as advertised

GODALMING NORTH

24078 Queen Street 2 Support Proceed as advertised

24084 Chalk Road 11 4 Support

1 Comment

Proceed with amendments

24084 24146

Deanery Road 3 2 Support

1 Comment


24084 Frith Hill Road j/w Deanery Road 1 3 Support


24085 Wolseley Road j/w Marshall Road 3 Support 1 Comment


24088 Wolseley Road j/w Llanaway Road 1 3 Support


24088 Wolseley Road j/w Hare Lane 1 1 Support



24088 24091

Fern Road 1 2 Support


24088 Meadrow 13 Proceed as advertised

24090, 24146

Nightingale Road 1 3 Support


24090 North Street 2 3 Support

2 Comment


24091 The Oval 6 7 Support

6 Comment


24091 Owen Road 1 Support Proceed as advertised

24092 George Road None Proceed as advertised

24113 Silo Road j/w Furze Lane 2 4 Support


24145 South Hill 9 6 Support

6 Comment


24145, 24148

Catteshall Lane 13 6 Support

4 Comment

Do not proceed

GODALMING SOUTH, MILFORD AND WITLEY

24067 Chapel Lane, Milford 9 1 Support

1 Comment


24067 Portsmouth Road, Milford 1 Proceed as advertised

24070 Brighton Road, Godalming None Proceed as advertised

24135 Brook Road, Wormley 1 1 Support


Total

206 Objections


Drawing No: 24003 Upper Weybourne Lane – FARNHAM NORTH

Response Type Points raised in letter, online form or E-mail (extracts from more lengthy responses with personal details removed)

Support I support the proposal as there have been significant parking issues in this area of Upper Weybourne Lane, however I would suggest extending the proposed double yellow markings so that they continued to the corner of Upper Weybourne Lane and Rowhills opposite 123 Upper Weybourne Lane. The residents of 120-146 have historically always parked on the road outside their properties, however there have recently been repeated incidents of cars parking on the pavement on the opposite side of the road narrowing the road significantly to the point that it is impacting the flow of traffic and preventing pedestrians from using the pavement. Continuing the double yellow lines further down the road on the Hillside side the carriageway would prevent this situation from occurring and improve safety and traffic flow.

Support as a resident of upper weybourne lane, parking for residents has become near off impossible, due to (a) non-residents parking <including residents of the flats not using their designated car parking facilities> (b) suppliers/visitors to the garage, hire shop and building contractor using it as a work parking space and (c) when there are sports events held at the recreation ground adjacent to the road, the area cannot cope with the extra vehicles, let alone the inconsiderate actions of some of the drivers, including blocking off road ways and parking on both sides of the road making it difficult for any vehicles using the road to travel and safely pass it (I have seen some inconsiderate drivers who can’t wait and driving half on the pathway adjacent to the flats down the road). I would like to see consideration given to the residents (maybe a parking permit scheme and using the waste land adjacent to the flats and making into additional parking).

Comment I feel that with cars being parked all over the pavements between the royal arms to Rowhills junction it would be a much better option to carry the parking restrictions along this length, as all the people that live in hillcrest and whitethorns on this side of the road have of road parking .but often there are cars double parked down this section of the road casing the traffic back up as it becomes a single lane

Officer Recommendation

It is recommended to proceed as advertised. The restrictions were proposed for the entrance of the flats at 90 Upper Weybourne Lane and cannot be added to at this stage.

Drawing No: 24126 Woodbourne j/w Weybourne Road – FARNHAM NORTH


Support At the bottom end of Woodbourne students and staff from Allhallows school park their cars all the way up past Nutbourne on the left coming up, for residents living on the left it is impossible to see any traffic coming up or down when trying to get out this is also due to the curve in the road. Some Parents when picking up their children park up on residents grass verges marking the verges badly. Large vehicles are restricted at times.One answer could be


double yellow lines on both sides from the Weybourne road up to Nutbourne. Support I fully support this proposal: the restriction is long overdue.

This junction has been dangerous for many years, made so by being considered the prime parking spot for the All Hallows 6th Form.

Support Some kind of parking restriction is required to improve the safety of the junction for all road users. It seems the Highway Code does not provide enough clarification as to where might be appropriate to park while collecting and or dropping of children.

Support Please please do this!!! We are desperate. I am confident that there will be a bad accident here in the future if something is not done. Cars park literally wherever they feel like at drop off and pick up from All Hallows’ school and Newly qualified drivers park ver unsafely all times of the day


It is recommended to proceed as advertised.

Drawing No: 24014 High Park Road – FARNHAM CENTRAL


Support I would like to see parking implemented as per plans. Officer

Recommendation It is recommended to proceed as advertised.

Drawing No: 24018 Castle Street – FARNHAM CENTRAL


Support I would like to see parking restrictions implemented as per plans. Comment I have noted you have incorporated a few additional pay and display spaces, but this only replaces the 20 minute

parking spaces you took away last time and does not address the underlying problem of planning/residential parking. I would suggest two options, either make Castle Street Zone A Residents Parking only or give Zone A permit holders the right to park in the towns pay and display car parks without the treat of a parking ticket. As you should be aware this happens on a number of occasions anyway, to allow for Castle Street Events like the Food, Bonfire and Bike ride


festivals. Some common sense and consideration for local residents please.


It is recommended to proceed as advertised. This is just an amendment for the Traffic Regulation Order to reflect the existing layout on the ground.

Drawing No: 24023 Middle Church Lane – FARNHAM CENTRAL


Comment 1. I would like to propose that residents of Lower, Middle, & Upper Church lanes have access to parking in the Wagon Yard car park the current cost is £1277 annually which personally as a pensioner is beyond my means and I know beyond some neighbours who have full time jobs perhaps a more reasonable/affordable price could be agreed on. 2. That the existing x 2 parking spaces in Middle Church Lane be increased and made permit holders only.

Comment More parking for residents in Middle Church Lane is needed as there are currently very limited spaces. We would like to see the roads to have access for permit holders only. Middle Church Lane is wide enough for increased parking along its length but should be restricted. We have very limited parking opportunities elsewhere. I have a Disabled Permit but have to walk up to Castle Street which can take me half an hour there and back and I am presently 89 and 11 half months old! Previous to November of last year I could park in Central car park, but would now have to pay £1250 per annum, which I can ill afford. We would strongly like the parking provision reviewed.

Comment The Lanes in Farnham is a heritage site and one of the prettiest residential streets comprising listed buildings from the Georgian era. For the number of houses that make up the Lanes, there are just 2 parking bays which are available to residential permit holders and also to non permit holders on a time basis. As a result residents are often unable to use these bays and members of the public frequently drive around looking for free parking bays to avoid using the public car parks. There is also the need for parents of children at St. Andrews School to be able to drop off/pick up their children for a few minutes each morning and afternoon during school times. In common with other residents in Lower, Middle and Upper Church Lanes, I welcome Farnham Town Council to propose the following changes to the existing arrangements:


1) A sign placed at the entrance to the Lanes stating “Residents’ permit holders only” 2) Parking bays increased from 2 to 4 and for resident permit holders only. 3) Residents of the Lanes to be allowed to park in Waggon Yard car park under their existing permits.

Comment As a Conservation Area, the Lanes (Lower, Middle and Upper Church Lane) need to be preserved and residents need to have more access to suitable parking facilities. Residents are regularly having to drive around Farnham town centre and increasingly further to look for parking spaces. For the number of houses that make up the Lanes there are currently only 2 parking bays for residents. We would like to propose a scheme for the road which enables limited access and parking for permit holders only. The possibility of an ‘Access Only’ sign. This should also ensure a safer road for the children and parents at St Andrews’ Infant School. Also, parking provision to be increased along Middle Church Lane, with the removal of the current 2 hour limit. Plus, the possibility of a discounted and more reasonable rate to be able to have the option to park in Waggon Year car park. We hope that as residents, paying Council Tax we will be able to have better access to parking facilities and it is made much easier and affordable for us.


It is recommended to proceed as advertised. Only minor changes to the single and double yellow lines were advertised.

Drawing No: 24025, 24029 Broomleaf Road – FARNHAM CENTRAL


Objection These proposals are detrimental to the local community in particular to the staff, patients & visitors of Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice & parents of local schools. The roads are wide enough to allow for parking without causing any highway safety issues. These community facilities have minimal parking on their sites and we are reaching a point where there will be no on street parking for their users. The gradual encroachment of these parking restrictions, ostensibly to stop commuters parking means that nearly all of the local streets are restricted. The station has responded to this need by putting in extra parking facilities for commuters, but the local users of the hospice & the schools have to park somewhere, & are being left with no options. The roads around this part of South Farnham are wide quiet residential roads and I can see no justifiable reason to restrict parking on them. I can only presume that this is being driven by local residents who have large drives, with no need to park in the street, but would rather not have people parked outside their houses. I am a resident of Old


Compton Lane & a member of staff at the hospice & I am strongly opposed to these proposals. Objection The hospice provides a valuable service to the community of Farnham in addition to generating income for the town.

We have limited on site parking and in order to be able to attend to and support our patients within the community we require a team of employed professionals. Without available residential parking these professionals will struggle hugely to be present in the hospice to provide the very best specialist care we do. Our incomes represent charity organisation working and with the rising costs of public transport, staff will not be able to pay to come to work. Many of our employees are specialists in their fields and therefore, travel great distances which public transport will also negatively impact. Without residential parking, the community of Farnham risks losing an incredibly valuable resource that the acute sector do not provide.

Objection Objection on the grounds of already very limited parking in the local area around Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice Care. As a staff member I have to travel by car, due to the nature of my role requiring community visits and difficult public transport links from home. On a daily basis I need to allow significant extra time to find parking and then often have to move my car in the middle of the day too, out of a 4 hour parking bay, again eating into my working day. With very limited on site parking this is an issue that affects all staff and visitors to the Hospice. The Hospice provides a specialist valuable service caring for the sick and dying in the community and supporting their family members as well. The Hospice relies upon fundraising and charitable donations in order to keep offering and develop the service. If staff cannot park, this uses up valuable work time and impacts upon appointment times. Visitors to the Hospice are often attending appointments or seeing family and friends who are very unwell. Not being able to park can be a source of unwelcome stress and anxiety.

Support I fully support the amendments to Broomleaf Road parking restrictions Support Commuter parking around Waverley Lane and adjoining/adjacent roads should be reduced now that the car park at

Farnham Station is in place. These small improvements are important to encourage commuters to use the car park, reduce congestion but allow short term parking for residential visitors. These restrictions should be extended to other roads around Waverley Lane, Menin Road, etc. which becomes extremely congested at school opening and closing times.

Support The change from single to double yellow parking lines at the entrance to Broomleaf Road to around the corner is long overdue, this particular stretch of road is very tricky to navigate as the bend obscures the sight line completely and people park cars in such a way in this part of the road that it results in the bend becoming dangerous. This proposed and in my opinion very necessary change has my full support.

Support I support the no parking at any time restriction being introduced from the entrance of Broomleaf Road from Waverley Lane. However unless this is also mirrored on the other side of the road it is still hazardous to overtake parked cars on the bend at the entrance to Hones Yard and from the bend to the junction with Waverley Lane, especially at school start and finish times, but also when there is an event in the town and the road is used for free parking.

Support I support the changes to no parking areas in Broomleaf Rd. It will certainly be less dangerous if they are implemented


Support When cars are parked on the North (Town) side of Broomleaf Road between the entrance from Waverley Lane and the first bend it is dangerous. On entering the road you cannot see far enough round the bend in the road to safely pull out to pass parked vehicles. Vehicles coming down the road, towards the junction, are often going quite fast (even at the speed limit would cause problems), and are on one before they are seen. Banning parking on both sides of the road between the junction and the bend, as proposed, would remove the danger.

Support The extension of the double yellow line will ease visibility and manoeuvring room on this bend in the road. Comment I support the introduction of no waiting at any time on the northern side from Waverley Lane up to the end of the

controlled parking zone. I would also like to ask for the removal of the unrestricted parking outside no.6 Broomleaf Road, and its conversion either to restricted parking from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. or parking limited to a maximum of 4 hours. At present this space is used for all day parking, generally by users of Farnham Station, who create nuisance for local residents by parking very early in the morning, with accompanying radio playing, door banging etc. Given that the station now has very adequate parking facilities, there is no justification for retaining this free parking space. In my earlier submission, I should have referred to the unrestricted parking outside no.4 Broomleaf Road, not no.6

Comment I would like to raise the issue with the present parking restrictions on Waverley lane connecting to Broomleaf Road. Waverley Lane is one of the artery roads in and out of Farnham on the South side and on a daily basis, it is reduced to single lane traffic between the Lynch Road and up to Old Compton lane. The reason is due to two schools on this route with cars using the single yellow lines to park and walk up to the school. At rush hour in the morning this causes a great deal of congestion in both directions. This is replicated on Tilford road. The stretch of road between Lynch and Old Compton, has a variety of grass verges. Whilst I am not a fan of removing natural features it would seem appropriate to create either passing points if no more double yellows are being installed or create parking spaces which are only valid during school pick up times during the week. This would help keep the road to two lanes during this busy time. People do need somewhere to stop for school drop off and perhaps a school drop off sticker could be supplied to allow people to park for max 20 mins at two times in the day as per parking at Waggon Yard Car Park which is used by parents going to St Andrews school.

Comment Please see my comments in section 8 above about the traffic management problems associated with the Lynch Road/Broomleaf Road junction. I recommend that for the reasons explained that the proposed parking restrictions are extended to include all of Lynch Road and circa 10m into Broomleaf Road parallel with the eastern footpath. This is immediately adjacent to the side o our property which is positioned on the corner of Lynch Road and Broomleaf Road.

Comment The first bay on Broomleaf Road is outside our house at No X. For years we have suffered from the noise of train commuters parking at 5.30am, turning in our drive which sets off the security light, parking over our driveway, etc, as well as cars parking for a great length of time, such as weeks on end, even months. (It was incredibly helpful when you did the last phase by marking the bay/yellow lines so that there was an obvious area where the cars should park, ie, not over our drive. We have not seemingly had a problem with this aspect at


least.) Not only this, but it is incredibly difficult to see as we leave our driveway, either reversing or going out frontwise due to the cars parked in the current bay. The sightline is very poor, and sometimes we just have to 'go for it'. As the cars travelling from Waverley Lane down Broomleaf Road seem to speed up as soon as they pass Hones Yard there are often times when we attempt to leave our driveway thinking it is safe, but a car comes speeding around, not being able to stop to allow us to complete us leaving our drive so we have to move back up our drive to allow them to pass. If there are cars travelling both ways down Broomleaf Road, then the car that normally gives way is coming towards Waverley Lane and has to use the 'inlet' over our drive to allow the other car to pass by. From the point of view of the commuters it would make a lot of sense to change the style of bay to a 4 hour limit so they are unable to use it as commuter parking, especially in light of there being perfectly adequate parking at the station now assuming the bay has to remain, however considering the number of 'near misses' that we as the householders and our family and friends have had, we would be incredibly grateful if you would consider doing away with the bay outside No 4 completely. If you need anymore information regarding our sight line or would like to send someone out to review this, I would be happy to help.


It is recommended to proceed as advertised. Parking between the bend and the junction here is not suitable for any member of the public, including staff from the hospice who have made the objections.

Drawing No: 24027 West Street – FARNHAM CENTRAL


Objection Currently there is confusion by different No loading restrictions in West Street, The Borough, Downing Street, Victoria Road, and South Street. These should be standardised at 8 am - 6 pm, AND ENFORCED.

Support I agree that it is very dangerous to turn onto West street from our residents’ car park; it is almost impossible for anyone driving to see oncoming traffic from both sides. There already has been a collision with an oncoming motorcycle and it is imperative that there is a parking restriction on both sides of the turn in to our private car park.

Support We are very pleased that this action is going ahead but also very disappointed that our request for two disabled carparks on either side of the entrance to our driveway opposite West Street Newsagent and the Plough has been turned down.

Support The present situation enders both traffic coming down West Street and those attempting to exit the off road car park for 18 + crs from the exit marked 'The Coach House' as lines of sight are blocked . There have already been accidents and future fatalities are feared

Support The proposal to create a restricted parking zone in an area which is also outside my house will significantly improve road and pedestrian safety and reduce the number of accidents. In the past two years I have been involved in 2 accidents, one due to


parked cars restricting the vision down West Street when exiting from our driveway next to 41 West Street, the other caused by a lorry squeezing between parked cars and not being able to avoid my car. Neither of these accidents would have occurred if these proposed parking restrictions were in place. Also, from an aesthetic view, it does not enhance Farnham's image to have cars parked part on the road and part on the pavement, which happens on a daily basis outside 41 to 45 West Street, when the single yellow line restrictions are lifted (between 18:00 and 08:00 hours). Overall, I welcome the proposed parking restrictions primarily for safety reasons, but also for an improved visual scene.

Support My husband and I moved to XX West Street two years ago. We loved everything about our new home except for the problems we have constantly experienced, attempting to get our cars out onto West Street. When cars, and especially large vans and lorries, are parked each side of our exit, it is absolutely impossible to see oncoming traffic. My husband had a very nasty experience when a motorbike travelling too fast drove into the side of his car as he was attempting to edge his way out of the exit when cars were parked blocking his view. There is no doubt, in my opinion, that the lack of double yellow lines each side of our exit is extremely dangerous and that one day there will be a fatal accident at this site. Double yellow lines would enable all the residents in our complex to get onto West Street safely. I have noticed that double yellow lines are painted on most of the other exit areas on West Street and have no hesitation in recommending, for our safety, that they are painted on the road by our exit as soon as is possible.

Support As another resident who has to negotiate this difficult turning into and out of our driveway every day, I fully support this proposal. When cars park on West St right up level to driveway entrance, it is extremely difficult turning out into West St due to the highly restricted views in both directions, exasperated by the natural curve in the road. Sometimes I have had to do multi-point turns to also negotiate getting into the drive because the gap has been so small. The proposed changes will make this an easier and safer proposition for all concerned using West St.

Comment As I cannot find the proposals I would suggest that parking be abolished in West Street too many motorist park without any consideration often turning West Street into a single flow of traffic. Vehicles block the traffic flow confident that no action will be taken against this antisocial behaviour and that double yellow lines can be ignored with impunity. Farnham has become a shopping area to avoid due to congestion and pollution.



Drawing No: 24028 Red Lion Lane – FARNHAM CENTRAL


Objection It has come to my attention that it is proposed to extend the DYL on the south side of the beginning of Red Lion Lane to alleviate a pinch point. It would be far better to extend the lines on the north side of the road instead, which would allow it to be cleaned and maintained. The road on the north side cannot be swept due to much of the parking which is illegal anyway. The road here has


not been swept for at least 10 years. Restricting space to park in Red Lion Lane with more DYL, will not solve the problem. Presently illegally parked cars where the DYL are proposed will just move down the road, causing more difficulties at other pinch points further down Red Lion Lane. Enforcing the existing parking laws occasionally would help solve the problem. To sum up. Put the DYL on the north side of the road and NOT the south, if they need extending. Enforce the current no access restriction.

Objection Firstly I fully support the introduction of (Red) proposed "No waiting at any time" areas in to Red Lion Lane ... but the suggested short stretch within the plan submitted (Farnham Central 2 of 3) completely misses the ongoing and VERY serious issues that afflict the Lane due to those who illegally park whilst visiting or attending events at the Maltings. Ignoring the "regulars" who use Red Lion Lane for free parking every single day ... the real and significant danger is caused by those who choose to park on the existing Yellow lines within the first 100 yards of Red Lion Lane (up to and just beyond the entrance of The Maltings car park). EVERY TIME time we have single or multiple vehicles parking on these Yellow lines ... the road immediately is reduce to a single track lane with NO safe place to pass. This is worst when we have larger events at The Maltings or when those exhibiting at the events chose to park illegally to unload or load and the beginning or end of each event (especially The Book Fairs, Monthly Markets or Craft Events). When this happens (EVERY month) it completely blocks the entry to Red Lion Lane, causing the vehicles to back up on the Firgrove Hill and creating a significant safety issue ! PLEASE can the Council create a RED (NO waiting at any time) Zone from the entrance to Red Lion Lane, to just beyond the main entrance to The Maltings car park. This would not only resolve a critical and current major issue for residents and visitors alike, but allow those who wish to enjoy parking everyday for work or events at The Matlings, to do so safely and more easily (saving time and future accidents). Lastly ... the position for pedestrians. You will be aware that there are NO footpaths at the entrance to Red Lion Lane for the first 60 yards. By ensuring that vehicles can no longer park or wait illegally (by introducing a RED No waiting at any time Zone) in this area, you will be reducing what is currently a VERY real danger area for those visiting Red Lion Lane or The Maltings on foot. I do hope that my request can be met and that this very overdue action can be implemented as part of the current proposals. To miss this opportunity would be a travesty for all and only bring forward the day when serious injury or death occurs through the complete ignorance of those who abuse the current outdated situation. I look forward to hearing your thoughts ...

Comment I think instead of extending double yellow line on Red Lion Lane, it should be made red line. Because with double yellow line disabled driver still can park by the entrance of the Malting car park even though there are plenty of disabled parking space , which means their cars block the view of drivers who try to get out of the car park, the driver not only have to come out blind but also drive onto the wrong side of Red Lion Lane . secondly there is no footpaths in Red Lion Lane … therefore illegal parked cars make it FAR more dangerous for those walking / pushing prams etc. thirdly Events at The Maltings greatly increase the number of vehicles illegally parked … or unloading / loading for the events … blocking the street and making entry to the Car Park and main road VERY dangerous.

Comment In my opinion it would be more efficient to have double yellow lines on the north side. This would be on the border of The


Maltings car park which has a grass mound with trees planted. The trees shed their leaves in the autumn and are churned up by illegally parked cars. This then clogs the drains, which has to be pumped out. If DYL were extended on the north side up to the beginning of No.18’s wall the road could be swept more easily. The second pinch point is opposite No.25 and No.27 Red Lion Lane and although parking is only on the north side, it is the narrowest point in the lane. Cars also park illegally at the dog-leg where large vehicles turn around. This could also be improved with a DYL restriction. As you may well be aware Red Lion Lane has two valid ‘Motor vehicles prohibited – except for access’ signs. These are blatantly ignored by shoppers and commuters every day. Hence illegal parking has become a free for all which causes the congestion and parking issue you are trying to eliminate.


It is recommended to proceed as advertised. The proposed double yellow lines are to address a specific pinch point related issue only. Red Lion Lane in general is very difficult to line in its current state, and any more extensive yellow lines will prevent residents and their visitors from parking as well. This is why permit parking was proposed in the past, which would not have required any lining and would allow residents and their visitors to park anywhere in the street. However, this was not supported by the majority of residents, but it is still believed to be the best solution to the problems mentioned.

Drawing No: 24032 Arthur Road and Weydon Hill Road – FARNHAM CENTRAL


Objection I am writing to object to the parking restrictions proposed outside my property. (X Weydon Hill Road) Enforcing such restrictions will prevent family/friends/tradesmen from being able to park outside and it could have a negative effect on the value of my property. I can understand the other side of the road as there is no dropped curb and when people park there it makes reversing out of our driveway very challenging. I do however believe that the tougher restrictions should be enforced down Arthur Road as the traffic that is created by the parked cars is horrendous and it can take up to 10 minutes to each the end of the road in the morning. Speed restrictions are the more important issue as people drive very fast round the corner and may people have almost crashed into me reversing out of my driveway. Speed bumps should be built.

Objection Double yellow lines around the corners of Arthur Road and Weydon Hill Road will probably cause people to drive the roads and bends faster, knowing that there won't be any narrowing of the road due to parked vehicles. This will also make it more dangerous for residents pulling in and out of their drives with cars driving at higher speeds. Grounds for objection - vehicles will drive the road faster making it dangerous and increasing the risk of accidents.


It is recommended to proceed as advertised. The proposed restrictions cover two significant bends in the road, and should not be parked on by anyone for any reason in order to maintain sightlines and road safety


for passing traffic.

Drawing No: 24038 Ridgway Road – FARNHAM CENTRAL


Objection I think you have misjudged what is needed by the parade of shops. Currently people park for only a few minutes (typically 5-15 minutes) while they briefly call into one of the small shops. Your new restrictions will not improve parking because the vast majority of cars already park for far less time that you are allowing. The main problem here is people parking on pavements and blocking residents because there is not enough parking. Your change will do NOTHING to help this.

Objection The proposed changes fail to take into account the Langhams development and the siting of the pedestrian crossing. Enforcement of any restrictions must be a priority. And the hazard created by the railway bridge on the A325 requiring Shortheath Road and Ridgway Road to be the designated route from the A31 to the A325 needs to be considered as a much wider issue.

Support This proposal will help with reducing congestion in and around the roads adjacent to the Tesco store.

Comment There is no point setting parking restrictions unless these are monitored and action visibly taken if cars are parked illegally. The area around The Ridgeway and Edward Road is an accident waiting to happen. Cars are parked all day on the double yellow lines, close to the pedestrian crossing and right at the junction of Edward Road making it impossible to turn safely on to The Ridgeway. Can you share any action that has been taken in the last year in this area? This is bound to get even worse with the adjacent development unless action is taken now.


It is recommended to proceed as advertised. The restrictions are intended to ensure a turnover of visitors to the shops by preventing long stay parking, which has been taking place here by some drivers. Both the new development and the crossing point have been considered in this proposal. Enforcement will take place by Guildford Borough Council of these new restrictions as part of their routine patrols.

Drawing No: 24110, 24112 Lynch Road – FARNHAM CENTRAL


Objection As a resident and an employee of Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice, I understand and support the need for restrictions on the bend of Lynch Road where it meets Old Compton Lane. However I feel that there is no need to place restrictions on the straight sections of Lynch Road. I also object to the removal of the 4 hour bays on Old Compton Road.


All houses in Lynch Road have very adequate off-street parking for the residents. The two roads are one of the few roads within walking distance of Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice, which allows staff, volunteers and visitors to park for a reasonable amount of time. Should restrictions come into place, then those working at the hospice would be forced to park much further away, along a road with inadequate street lighting and poorly maintained pavements. Many volunteers are elderly and I would hate them to be concerned for their safety.

Objection Dear Sirs Re: Proposal 3282/WAV. Drawing no: 24028 Rev F I represent the Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice situated on the corner of Waverley Lane and Menin Way and we have, over the years, supported the local community regarding the implementation of safe parking. However, regretfully we need to raise an objection to the latest proposals, specifically the proposed parking restrictions in Lynch Road/Old Compton Lane, Farnham. In order to have sufficient immediate parking for our patients’ visitors to the Hospice (relatives of patients dying with terminal illness in our 18-bed In-Patient Unit), we encourage essential staff and other visitors to park in neighbouring roads. We have extended on-site Hospice parking facilities as much as we are permitted (protected trees prevent further car park development), so require overflow roadside parking for essential staff nearby. Recent restrictions outside the Hospice and in neighbouring roads have made available parking, particularly for full day staff, extremely limited. This new proposal will make it considerably more difficult for clinical staff attending our patients, and essential administration staff, to find available spaces. With reference to your map, our specific objection relates to proposal to change the current derestricted waiting to “no waiting at any time” outside house numbers 17 and 19 Old Compton Lane (which appear to be in Lynch Road). . With 20min and 4-hour parking only on Old Compton Way, our full-time clinical staff can now only realistically use Lynch Road for full-day parking (all other options having now been eliminated). Therefore any changes to the parking restrictions on Lynch Road will seriously impact our staff who provide important and much-needed services to not only our local community but to all of Northwest Surrey and Northeast Hants. We totally accept that road safety is a priority and, to that end, we agree with your proposal to add restrictions to parking on the actual bend. However, as this is a wide road with good lines of sight, we request that you reconsider the extent of this restriction and make it the very minimum that would be required to safely negotiate the corner, leaving other areas unchanged. Thank you for your consideration of these amendments.

Objection There is already a lot of competition for parking around this area, causing people to park dangerously or illegally in order to park for work or to drop their children off at the school. Imposing further restrictions will only make this worse. It will also make it harder for patients or visitors to the Hospice to park nearby, people who may not be able to walk very far, or need to get to the Hospice in a hurry because their loved one is very ill - it really can make the difference. When at it's busiest, it already takes 10 minutes to find a parking space in this area, which will usually be at the furthest point of Lynch Road, and from there it takes a further 10 minutes to walk to the Hospice. 20 minutes is a long


time when you're rushing to see an extremely ill loved one. Before you make your decision, I ask you to drive down to this area yourself at about 8.40am, and try to park near the Hospice, or along Lynch road.

Objection I work at Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice and if we are no longer able to park in Lynch Road, it will mean a much longer walk to work, therefore will have to leave earlier to allow extra time. Not much fun, especially when you don't live locally and also having to carry equipment etc. etc.

Objection As a nurse who works at one of the Jewels in Farnham's crown Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice I would not like to see further restrictions on parking as we can sometimes struggle to park when coming on duty. As a nurse leaving late at night you do not want to be having to walk long distances.

Objection Please don’t put any more parking limitations on roads in this area. It is not causing any danger. If it was dangerous I would agree but it is not so seems pointless. It will just add to the lack of parking available in the area, which is not helpful to anyone.

Objection These proposals are detrimental to the local community in particular to the staff, patients & visitors of Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice & parents of local schools. The roads are wide enough to allow for parking without causing any highway safety issues. These community facilities have minimal parking on their sites and we are reaching a point where there will be no on street parking for their users. The gradual encroachment of these parking restrictions, ostensibly to stop commuters parking means that nearly all of the local streets are restricted. The station has responded to this need by putting in extra parking facilities for commuters, but the local users of the hospice & the schools have to park somewhere, & are being left with no options. The roads around this part of South Farnham are wide quiet residential roads and I can see no justifiable reason to restrict parking on them. I can only presume that this is being driven by local residents who have large drives, with no need to park in the street, but would rather not have people parked outside their houses. I am strongly opposed to these proposals.

Objection I am objecting to the proposals for I believe they do not go far enough on Lynch Road. At present many parents picking children up from school park on the double yellow lines at the start of Lynch Road and it is only a matter of time until there is a serious accident. There is limited parking available along the rest of Lynch road at busy times. The parking problem leads to both commuters and school traffic regularly parking in such a way as to inhibit both access to driveways and visibility for those leaving driveways along the entire road, again increasing the risk of accident. I suggest therefore that the 4 hour waiting limit should apply on all parts of Lynch road where any parking is proposed to be permitted, ie not where no waiting is allowed but all other parts where it is safe to park. Combined with this it would be very helpful to have exclusion lines painted by all driveways in Lynch road instead of simply those near to Waverley Lane, to make the area safer for all. For commuters there is now a much larger car park available. If the current proposals are implemented then the problem will surely simply shift along the road and drivers will seek to squeeze in where there really isn't safe room.

Objection This is in addition to my comments regarding Old Compton Lane which bear relevance to Lynch Road.


To restrict all the current parking availability will add further stress to me and minimise my chances of parking anywhere near my house. To take spaces away seems to me only an opportunity to enhance the aesthetics of the environment with no consideration as to the value and purpose of providing much needed parking spaces. This is a very disappointing and frustrating proposal.

Objection I object to the proposed continuation of no parking restrictions opposite 27and 29 Lynch Road. This situation is extremely dangerous as it is close to the bend in the road. Commuter cars park there all day, forcing passing cars travelling west into the middle of the road, where they are in danger of colliding with cars coming round the corner. I have expressed this objection before and have received no response. Please can somebody come and look at the problem and review the plans. Thank you.

Objection I would like to raise an objection for the proposed parking restrictions for Lynch Road. As I am staff at Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice we rely on roadside parking as well as the many volunteers that give up their time to work alongside use. As supporters of the community I feel that this would be unfair as houses along that road have plenty of driveway room and can't see this as being a safety aspect as the road is plenty wide enough to accommodate traffic. I could understand one side of the road only but strongly feel that should this happen you would just be moving the problem to another road.

Objection Phyllis Tuckwell employees may need to park here as there is not enough parking spaces at the hospice. If they cannot park there they will need to walk much further to work and it is unsatisfactory to expect female employees to walk that distance late at night or in the dark.

Objection I support the no parking on the bend on old Compton but we do need parking and there is very little in the area. Objection I work at Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice, and visit patients at home, as well as cover the inpatient unit, I therefore need to

use my car for work, and am usually in and out of the hospice most days. Parking is now very limited around the hospice and staff waste a huge amount of time trying to find a parking space and then having to move their car again during the day. This affects the level of patient care. Would it be possible for staff to have dispensation to park? How does the hospice keep open otherwise, we are just trying to help the local population, and use our funds effectively.

Objection I work at Phyllis Tuckwell and if the parking in Lynch Road is limited further this will greatly affect employees being able to get to work and be able to park near enough to work to make it viable to work at Phyllis Tuckwell.

Objection The grounds for my objection are that I work at Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice in Waverley Lane and the parking in the whole surrounding area has been reduced significantly over the past couple of years. The spaces outside the Hospice that were frequently used by volunteers and patients / family of patients were changed to 20 minute parking but it is left empty apart from school drop off and pick up times. This has then meant that any cars that used to be able to park there are now having to move to the surrounding areas - including Lynch Road. During busy times this means that there won’t be any parking within a reasonable distance for the volunteers to use and this could then result in the Hospice losing these very valued people who give up their own time to support us. I also feel that it is


just moving the problem and not dealing with the issue of where all the cars can park. It also takes up a lot of the staffs time in having to move cars and especially the nurses that work on late shifts having to park further away from the Hospice. I totally understand that cars should not park on corners of roads and agree that these section should be restricted but no further than that. I really hope that you will reconsider where the restriction will be imposed. Thank you.

Objection Since starting work at the Phyllis Tuckwell I have become aware of the vital part it plays for the local community and how important our work is. Parking in the hospice and the roads around is very limited and we staff often have to park some distance away. My job involves coming in and out of the hospice to visit people reaching the end of life out in the community. The further I have to walk back and forward to my parked car, the more time is taken out of my day from visiting patients. Two or three trips back and forward from car parked some distance away to hospice means at least one less patient can be visited. I appreciate the needs for safety on our roads but there must be a balance with providing support for an essential community service to function efficiently to help people.

Objection I work at Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice Care and feel that parking for our patients, families and volunteers is already extremely limited! This is without taking staff parking into account. It would be near on impossible for find parking if more restrictions were put into place! Please reconsider!

Objection I am a volunteer at the Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice and the onsite parking is extremely restrictive (due in part to making sure there is sufficient parking for the patients visitors). There are already numerous parking restrictions in the area surrounding Waverley Lane and I do not feel that further ones are necessary. By preventing cars parking along both sides of Lynch Road drivers will have to find other places to park and this is just a case of moving the 'problem' on. I think that it is difficult enough to find somewhere to park now and am worried that these measures will make it difficult for volunteers and staff to access the hospice and it could lead to people considering their positions in the future. I don't think the planned proposal has been based on a safety aspect so cannot see who it will benefit except the residents.

Objection I work for Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice Care, and we already struggle with parking enough as it is - many of us use Lynch Road to park on, or the various 4 hour bays in the surrounding roads in order to get to the hospice. I have witnessed residents of Lynch Road and Old Compton Lane park their own vehicles (for which they already have ridiculously large driveways) and park directly in the centre of a 4hr bay - to prove a point. This is inconsiderate, and really has an effect on the staff here at Phyllis Tuckwell - nurses, counsellors, doctors, therapists to name a few. The problem is worsened by parents on the school run, which cause major delays along the main road, which then has a knock on effect in the surrounding areas. When you make this decision based off residents having a moan in the comfort of their lavish houses vs the community using the facilities at the hospice - including relatives rushing to park to see their desperately ill relatives, please have a good hard think about the implications.

Objection Increasing restriction locally on parking for visitors attending the surrounding area. Visitors e.g. to home and to the


Hospice Objection I work at Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice and it is already known parking at the hospice isn't sufficient for patients/families,

volunteers and staff at busy times of the week. The road parking around the hospice allows us to park for free when there is no space in our current car park. If further parking restrictions come into force along Old Compton Road into Lynch Road, then this will just move the parking 'problem' further round the corner on Lynch Road and to other local roads until local residents complain once again. I understand there may be the need to restrict parking only the corner as Old Compton Road changes into Lynch Road to eliminate the 'blind' spot parking creates, however as this isn't a busy traffic road I must admit I would hardly say this is a huge safety issue, more of an inconvenience if you have to reverse (... although perhaps it is a safety issue if drivers aren't confident reversing). Perhaps a few marked bays with space double yellowed round the actual corner could be put in force. If further restrictions did come in I fear it would put of volunteers who kindly give their time in all different dept's across the hospice if they could not park within 1/2 mile of the hospice or had to pay for parking. If you wish to put off people parking for free who use the train then why not introduce parking permits and bays. It also does not help that so many of the existing marked bays have recently been changed to 20 minutes. Great for dropping children at school, but as parents occupy these spaces when staff & volunteers especially come to park in the morning, it pushes us to park along Old Compton/ Lynch Road and other roads, then these 20 minute bays are left much unused the rest of the day until pick up at 3pm. If these could be used by staff/volunteers (either via permits) during the rest of the day it would stop a lot of other road parking in the area.

Objection It is disappointing to see yet further restrictions to parking in the vicinity of the Hospice, making it harder for us to do our difficult work to serve this community. Is there a desire to drive the Hospice away from Farnham to some remote spot? Or, is there an expectation that we should reduce services and expand our car park? Parking in this part of Lynch Road has been common practice for many years and passes without incident. There is no need to impose new restrictions for reasons of safety. Look instead to lift restrictions along Old Compton Lane where 20 minute parking bays are of no use to anyone. In doing this you would show that you appreciate the Hospice and value its dedicated staff. Easing current restrictions wherever possible should be your priority. To make it yet harder for us to come and work here, should be something too shameful for you to seriously consider.

Objection There are less parking spaces around the Compton Road area and for a short amount of time, harder to get parked locally, taking more spaces away will be even more difficult for visitors to the area.

Objection Parking is sometimes at a disadvantage at Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice and will make it difficult for those visiting terminally ill patients and members of the family (like myself) at an already difficult time. Phyllis Tuckwell is an amazing Charity and yes, the staff do park there so inpatient's relatives can visit them and not have to walk for ages... Support local charities!!


Objection Hopefully just an interim adjustment but you are just tinkering round the edges. A waste of time. Lynch road parking is dangerous and a shambles and can be easily simplified and made safer now that the station car park has been enlarged. You will be aware that we have all day parking (totally unnecessary now), 4 hour parking, 20 minute parking and single and double yellow lines - nothing simple about Lynch Road!!! In addition, parents have a fetish about parking on the double yellows while they pick up their little darlings! Often, residents can't turn into Lynch Road without driving on the wrong side of the road - Dangerous at any time but especially when lots of kiddies are being picked up. Then we get half way along the road often on the wrong side and approaching a bend to be confronted by oncoming traffic very unreasonably driving on the correct side of the road - often gesturing (very reasonably!!!) at us residents. A single yellow with no parking for one hour during the day (maybe a different hour on each side). This would get rid of the commuters (some of whom park for a week at a time), allow the mums to pick up their little darlings (Lynch Road is prime parking for the 4 wheel drives, being between the two schools!!!), do away with the need to park on double yellows, reduce the need for Street furniture and specify the time for the parking attendant to visit, thus reducing costs! Bingo. Job done! It is about time that Lynch Road residents are given similar consideration to those of the Great & Little Austens area (very restricted parking).

Objection I support the proposed restrictions to allow no waiting at any time along the left hand bend leading from Old Compton Lane to Lynch Road as the current parking is potentially dangerous around that bend. However, with the existing restrictions which exist along Lynch Road, the only area that does not have any restrictions is along the stretch from number 53 to number 39. My expectation is that the parks that currently park for business along the stretch to be prohibited will simply move their cars. If it is considered inappropriate for cars to park at will along the rest of Old Compton Lane and Lynch Road, I do not understand why it is appropriate for them to park at will from number 53 to 39. I would support: a restriction of Monday to Friday between 8am and 6pm, (as, for example, in other parts of Old Compton Lane or Lynch Road); or a particular length of parking (e.g. 1 or 2 hours) as, for example, other areas of Old Compton Lane/Lynch Road; or restricted hours of parking (e.g. not between 11am and 12noon) as, for example, in the Great Austins area so that all day parking is avoided. Thank you for your consideration.

Objection I support the proposed restrictions to allow no waiting at any time along the left hand bend leading from Old Compton Lane to Lynch Road as the current parking is potentially dangerous around that bend. However, with the existing restrictions which exist along Lynch Road, the only area that does not have any restrictions is along the stretch from number 53 to number 39. My expectation is that the parks that currently park for business along the stretch to be prohibited will simply move their cars. If it is considered inappropriate for cars to park at will along the rest of Old Compton Lane and Lynch Road, I do not understand why it is appropriate for them to park at will from number 53 to


39. I would support: a restriction of Monday to Friday between 8am and 6pm, (as, for example, in other parts of Old Compton Lane or Lynch Road); or a particular length of parking (e.g. 1 or 2 hours) as, for example, other areas of Old Compton Lane/Lynch Road; or restricted hours of parking (e.g. not between 11am and 12noon) as, for example, in the Great Austins area so that all day parking is avoided. Thank you for your consideration.

Objection I am very concerned to hear that you may be considering parking restrictions to Lynch Road Farnham. I am part of the nursing staff at Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice where there is limited parking for staff and visitors. The nursing staff quite often need to park outside of the hospice grounds and obviously endeavour to park as close as possible as we are often needing to travel/ walk to hospice in the dark. I feel this is an issue of personal safety to myself and others who would need to park further away and therefore more vulnerable making our way to work.

Objection The hospice provides a valuable service to the community of Farnham in addition to generating income for the town. We have limited on site parking and in order to be able to attend to and support our patients within the community we require a team of employed professionals. Without available residential parking these professionals will struggle hugely to be present in the hospice to provide the very best specialist care we do. Our incomes represent charity organisation working and with the rising costs of public transport, staff will not be able to pay to come to work. Many of our employees are specialists in their fields and therefore, travel great distances which public transport will also negatively impact. Without residential parking, the community of Farnham risks losing an incredibly valuable resource that the acute sector do not provide.


Objection As a worker at Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice the parking situation for visitors and staff is very difficult. Restricting parking even further is going to mean more issues for staff and visitors seeing terminally ill patients which as you can imagine is a very sensitive time. Parking is the last thing you want to be concerned about and the hospice is very busy providing a vital service for the community.


Objection I cannot see a reason for blocking the whole side of the road when all the houses have big drive ways, and that there is only 4 hour gaps on the other side. Thought: I could understand if just one side had parking all the way and the other side protected. This is a community where there is a train station, schools and a hospice which is for all people in the area. There are volunteers as well as paid work force to ensure that the hospice runs efficiently. I already park on the roads, which can be difficult to find spaces and walk home in the dark after work, and can only see the problem being moved to another road. We cannot be protective of what we think we have rights to, but be considerate and generate a fair system for all if want our community to function.

Objection There is incredibly VERY little parking around this locality of Lynch Road and the surrounding roads in particular. It is congested with the two main local school, South Farnham and St Polycarps. I work at the Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice and we frequently spend more time driving around trying to find somewhere to park our cars for work. With the restrictions in place, we have to remember to move the car after 20 mins, 1 hour, 2 hours or 4 hours depending on where one parks. This means leaving what you are doing, walking back to your car and begin again the drive around to look for another. As a community worker I am often late to a patient or late for a meeting searching for parking.

Support I fully support the prosed amendments to Lynch Road parking. Support We fully support the Parking proposals in Lynch Road, particularly the restricted parking outside number 15.

This section of road (outside number 15) is on a blind bend and currently vehicles are permitted to park on this stretch of road. Vehicles entering Lynch Road from Waverley Lane, have no option but to drive on the wrong side of the road around this right hand bend due to the parked cars on the left. There is no clear visibility around the corner and therefore is unsafe for road users. Vehicles driving on the wrong side of the road often come nose to nose with another vehicle travelling in the opposite direction. There is often little scope for the driver who is on the wrong side of the road to reverse, which results in one or more of the vehicles mounting the grass verges so that they can pass one another. Putting in parking restrictions on this section of road will improve road safety for both drivers and pedestrians. Driveway access for residents will also be greatly improved.

Support The minor modifications to the parking restrictions will improve the safety of the road for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians by opening up sight lines which are at present restricted or blocked most of the day. Now that there is adequate provision for parking at the station there is no need for commuters to park in suburban roads all day.

Support The new on-street parking proposals will help to prevent commuters from parking on suburban roads. Lynch Road is particularly busy at school drop off and collection times and at times becomes unsafe especially for child pedestrians and drivers coming out of their drives. Less parking means safer roads. I support the proposals generally and for Lynch Road in particular.

Support We welcome attempts to control 'all day' parking on Lynch Road. The road is regularly used by London commuters due to its proximity to the station. At least half a dozen cars are parked every week day from 7am until 7pm, resulting


in large stretches of the road being single lane. This blocks sight lines along the road. I understand that commuters will choose to save money by parking all day on residential roads but they should be encouraged to use the newly built car park at the station. With thanks.

Support I am pleased that there may be further parking restrictions put in place on Lynch Road and overall support these. Currently there are many cars parked from early morning until the evening by train commuters who prefer not to use the station car park (which has recently been significantly extended in size). The resulting congestion makes the road in practice single track and dangerous for those collecting children from nearby schools. However, I am concerned the restrictions proposed at the far end of Lynch road (near nos 17) may push even more traffic towards the Waverley Lane end of Lynch Road. More restrictions are needed to prevent this happening near Lynch Road 27-37 areas, many areas of which are starting to be parked on all day on weekdays. Lynch Road requires adequate on road parking but for restricted time periods to prevent it being used as a free train station car park. With the station car park expansion, there is no argument for long-stay parking on this residential road any more.

Support This is a long difficult bend to navigate without any cars parked on it or nearby and is made dangerous with the parking of vehicles as currently happens. No parking as is proposed is a very necessary solution to make this bend safer to navigate. The change to No Parking at any time has my full support.

Support Our house is located on the bend of Lynch Road where it forms a curved T junction with Broomleaf Road. The western edge of our property faces Broomleaf Road. I fully support the new parking proposals for Lynch Road but would like to see these changes extended to cover all of Lynch Road. This is because I am convinced that the existing proposals will simply displace parking further along Lynch Road to the area where the restrictions stop. I have personal knowledge that this will inevitably happen from my experience of living in west London for 49 years as well as being a senior police officer in command of a district of central London. There is a related traffic management issue concerning this bend in Lynch Road at the junction with Broomleaf Road. This concerns the excessive speeds at which HGV lorries and other vehicles sometimes navigate the bend. There are also regular reversing manoeuvres taking place outside our house driving backwards into Broomleaf Road. I will write to you separately about these matters. I know that my neighbour, Mr XXXX at XX Lynch Road is also going to write to you about this issue. I contend that the risks associated with reversing at this junction would justify extending parking restrictions along the western side of Broomleaf Road for a distance that corresponds with the length of an HGV.

Support I am in full support of the parking proposals in Lynch Road, in particular the proposal regarding the bend outside number 15. I have found this section of road to be very dangerous, as when cars are parked on the left hand side of the road I am forced onto the wrong side of the road without being able to see what is coming around the bend. This


often means I will encounter another car coming at speed in the other direction. As a new and inexperienced driver, I find this very worrying. I have no option other than to perform unsafe reversing manoeuvres on to grass verges and pavements, putting myself and other road users, such as pedestrians, at risk. The parking restrictions proposed will allow myself and other drivers to proceed safely along Lynch Road and not put other road users at risk.

Support Currently outside no. 3-5 Lynch Rd there are currently 4 unrestricted bays which are occupied from 6.30 am to 7.30 pm by Commuters. This location is on a bend in the road and it dangerous as these cars remain here all day. This is not necessary following the extension of the Station car park where there are now adequate spaces. With two schools in the vicinity it is important that spaces are available during the day for school pickups and for visitors to the area. I fully support the proposals to make time limited bays in front of both 3 and 5 lynch Road.

Support This corner on Lynch Road is very dangerous with parking on both sides allowed at the moment. I hope this parking restriction will be implemented.

Support The bend around the junction of Lynch Road and Old Compton Lane is heavily parked during much of the week. The clearing of this area of parked cars will enable full visibility on the bend.

Support I am writing in full support of the introduction of a single yellow line up Lynch Road and limited bays near the bottom for school drop offs and pickups. The bends in the road make it very difficult when cars are parked along the lefthand side. You meet a car head on and often there is nowhere to reverse or pull into to let the other car passed. This results in the grass verges being driven over.

Comment I support the proposals for the Lynch Road, Broomleaf Road, and Waverley Lane area of Farnham but would like to see the parking restrictions extended to cover all of Lynch Road. This is because I am concerned that the existing proposals will simply displace parking further along Lynch Road to the area where the restrictions stop. It simply moves the problem on from one zone to another.

Comment 1) I agree with the proposals, but I propose an additional restriction(s) at the junction of Lynch Road and Broomleaf Road. 2) Many large delivery lorries use the junction between Lynch Road and Broomleaf Road and cars/vans parked in the immediate vicinity of the junction often cause lorries to mount the pavements and verges, causing damage and putting pedestrians and property at risk. 3) I have observed this issue for over thirty years and it has got progressively worse as the size of vehicles using the junction has increased. 4) Hence, I believe that some restrictions such as "yellow lines" that extend 25m from the junction (in all directions on both sides of the road) would alleviate this problem. 5) I am aware that the Highway Code states that cars should not be parked within 10m of a junction, but drivers fail to adhere to the Highway Code, and I suggest 25m of restrictions due to the size of the vehicles which use the junction. 6) I raised this issue with '[email protected]' reference “11732/14180/WAV/AK - Parking Proposals” in an


email dated Sun 08/03/2009 14:24. Comment 1. While I fully agree with the proposal to add no waiting Monday-Friday outside no.15 Lynch Road from a safety

point of view the current bay outside no. 13 should also be given the same restriction as this is one of the most dangerous corners on Lynch Road. This would then allow cars to pass more safely on this stretch of road. 2. Following the all day parking restrictions brought in in the Great Austins area, and the expansion of station parking, it is unfair and inequitable that all day parking is allowed in Broomleaf Road and Lynch Road at all. I trust this will be addressed when the wider parking review is carried out

Comment The junction between Lynch Road and Broomleaf Road is in a relatively quiet residential area, a few hundred metres from a main road, but frequently used by large and heavy delivery and constriction vehicles. I have lived in Lynch Road for over 30 years and the number of large vehicles using the junction had increased significantly in recent years. I assume that the increase is due to delivery vehicles responding to online shopping orders and for home improvements. The junction is not a conventional level, right angled T junction; turning left into Lynch Road from Broomleaf Road is a tight uphill turn, and turning right into Broomleaf Road from Lynch is a tight downhill turn. As well as the geometry of the T junction, the layout of Lynch Road either side of the junction makes the junction hazardous The bend in Lynch Road (adjacent to the junction) means that the drivers of vehicles approaching the junction do not have a clear view of the road ahead, and hence drivers may be unaware of approaching vehicles from either road. Some drivers approach the bend in Lynch Road, and the junction at excessive speed, leading to other drivers needing to take avoiding action to prevent collisions. The main issue of the junction is the risk to people and property caused by large, heavy delivery and construction vehicles which fail to negotiate the bend. Large vehicles usually mange to negotiate the bend successfully, but cars parked close to the junction results in large vehicles having to reverse, leaving the road and mounting the grass verge and footpath. Vehicles which use this junction and/ or leave the road have damaged: The road surface, Kerbs, Drains and drain covers, trees, grass verges, footpaths and hedges. Vehicles fail to negotiate the junction safely due to: Excessive speed, a lack of awareness of the tightness of the junction, a lack of awareness of the vehicle’s ability to turn, driving recklessly or without due care and attention, cars parked to close to the junction, lack of advanced warning signs. To try and prevent these situations happening you could, reduce the speed limit to 15mph. Remove the opportunity for vehicles to park within 25 metres of the junction. The current parking restrictions in Lynch Road and Broomleaf Road have increased the likelihood of vehicles parking close to the junction. The recent parking review was to address the whole of Lynch Road (and others in the area), but this junction in my opinion requires special attention due to its configuration. I raised this issue during a previous review, Parking Proposals, dated 8 March 2009.


It is recommended to proceed as advertised. The two sections of Lynch Road where restrictions are being proposed are both bends in the road, and both were specifically being mentioned by residents regarding road safety and sight line issues for passing and meeting traffic. The proposed yellow lines and parking bays are intended to better manage parking on these two bends without taking it away entirely. The vast majority of objections have been submitted by staff from the nearby hospice, with strong concerns regarding the decreasing amount of space in the vicinity for their staff to park. With regards to this, it is


important to mention that several streets in the vicinity of the hospice are to be extensively reviewed as part of the 2018 Waverley Parking Review. The intention of this review will be to look at all the existing restrictions, including all of the existing unrestricted sections of road, to determine ways to prioritise local parking needs over commuter parking, following the expansion of the Farnham railway station car park. As part of this, we will be looking at ways to help hospice staff to park where many commuters are currently parking for long periods of the day.

Drawing No: 24111 Searle Road j/w Firgrove Hill – FARNHAM CENTRAL


Support Extension of these double yellow lines WILL improve vehicle safety while entering and exiting Searle Road. The existing double yellow lines have not been painted for several years and given that they are of the 'conservation area' thin style, they deteriorate rapidly. Could this be reconsidered as this is not a conservation area? The street has not been road swept for over 1 year (Dec 2016) and without residence clearing leaves, the existing double yellow lines would be permanently covered by vegetation. Drivers do ignore the existing lines for short-term parking and residents have NEVER seen any enforcement measures taken, even when requested specifically as this is handled by Guildford.

Support While I welcome the proposed extension of the double yellow lines at the mouth of the road, I trust that this will not compromise the further restrictions requested in my letter of 10th August 2017. Your email response of 14th August 2017 indicated that my request (sent on behalf of Searle Road Residents) would be considered in the next assessment sessions provisionally scheduled for September and October 2018.



Drawing No: 24112 Old Compton Lane – FARNHAM CENTRAL


Objection As above we have limited parking at the Hospice and staff and visitors can find themselves struggling to attend meetings and training when having to park off site

Objection People currently park at the join of Old Compton Lane and Lynch Road, for part of the day, while they visit Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice or the two local schools. I fully support no parking on the bend, but believe to extend "no parking"


outside the two last houses in Compton Lane is unnecessary and removes quite a few possible spaces. As "no parking" is extended further and further away from the station, it makes parking for facilities like the two local schools and hospice very difficult. If the issue is that commuters park their cars there all day, why not change all "no parking" in the whole local area to "4 hour only". This would stop commuters, but allow local parking.

Objection These proposals are detrimental to the local community in particular to the staff, patients & visitors of Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice & parents of local schools. The roads are wide enough to allow for parking without causing any highway safety issues. These community facilities have minimal parking on their sites and we are reaching a point where there will be no on street parking for their users. The gradual encroachment of these parking restrictions, ostensibly to stop commuters parking means that nearly all of the local streets are restricted. The station has responded to this need by putting in extra parking facilities for commuters, but the local users of the hospice & the schools have to park somewhere, & are being left with no options. The roads around this part of South Farnham are wide quiet residential roads and I can see no justifiable reason to restrict parking on them. I can only presume that this is being driven by local residents who have large drives, with no need to park in the street, but would rather not have people parked outside their houses. I am a resident myself of Old Compton Lane & a member of staff at the hospice & I am strongly opposed to these proposals.

Objection I objections on the following basis: 1. I am the only house in this locality without any on site car parking facilities. 2. As a consequence and with the benefit of advice I sought and paid for pre-application advice to obtain a cross over. By email of 18th January 2017 SCC advised that the visibility would be substandard and the crossover was unacceptable. At the site meeting on 16th January I was informed of this likely outcome and advised by your officer’s to seek a residents parking permit through the Parking Review process. 3. I sought advice and submitted the papers to the Review process. 4. Your office was telephoned and I was told that it would be helpful to support my case with the positive views of local residents. 5. I undertook this exercise and 7 local households supported my proposal; ID ANON 82D4 9NHGR. There were no objections. 6. I was astonished to find that this submission received no reference whatsoever in the relevant proceedings. 7. By email of 20th September 2017 I was informed that the County Council could not provide a single residents parking permit although no adequate explanation was given for this. 8. I also spoke to local councillor regarding the opportunity to mark the existing bays so that the space usage was maximised. As a result of this not happening cars park without due consideration and spaces are lost. This has not been suggested in the proposals nor has it been done. 9. The 20 minute bays provide little help. They are empty throughout the day. Could the council not consider also providing a longer term stay for these increasing the likelihood that I and my clients may be able to park.


The consequences of your action and the Review are that I still have nowhere to park and indeed the situation will be made worse by the proposals. What is astonishing is that the County has allowed no.5 to take up 2-3 public parking spaces so as to allow an additional access to the house whilst not even considering my reasonable request. This is manifestly unreasonable and inequitable. The locality comprises large detached dwellings all of which have ample off street parking. Numbers 48 and 50 are somewhat unique in so far as they are semi detached and smaller. Whilst 48 have a vehicular access and on-site parking, my home has nothing. As a single mother with a young child I have to make trips away from home. On returning I frequently cannot find a space to park without regular trips to Old Compton Lane to move my car so as not to attract a parking fine. I also run a small clinic from home relying on clients parking in nearby streets. These new proposals will in addition jeopardise my earning capacity. In practice the 2 available spaces at the junction of Old Compton Lane and Waverley Lane are often taken by causal parking and there is nowhere else to park in the immediate locality, when returning from work or other trips. Plainly this situation needs to be resolved and I propose a single residents parking space outside number 1 Compton Lane. It begs the question "Where do you propose that I park?"

Objection I believe that the only currently unlimited parking area on this road (leading to lynch road is been considered for no waiting area, which will put increase pressure to park your car for longer than 4 hours (especially when the working day is of 6 hours). There is limited space around the Phylis Tuckwell for staff, visitors and patient to park. Lack of spaces will increase the time required to get to work which for some of the staff is already reduced due to family commitments. Farnham as a town has got very limited and expensive parking spaces, therefore paying for parking in order to avoid fines is not the viable option to keep your job!

Objection I work at the Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice, my hours are 8.30 - 3. The Hospice Car park is small and all ready full when I arrive. So I have to seek alternate parking and this is the nearest.

Objection As a volunteer at the Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice, due to the existing parking restrictions in the area I normally have to park in Old Compton Lane. I'm therefore objecting to impose a 'no parking' area in Old Compton Lane as this will further restrict the amount of parking for both volunteers/staff at the hospice. The parking situation hasn't been helped by imposing a 20 minute limit on parking spaces in Menin Way, which are mainly empty after the start of the school day. Why cannot these be made 4 hour bays. Whilst I appreciate that the 'issue' of parking in the area is a problem, these latest proposals will only further complicate where volunteers/staff are able to park.

Objection The hospice provides a valuable service to the community of Farnham in addition to generating income for the town. We have limited on site parking and in order to be able to attend to and support our patients within the community we require a team of employed professionals. Without available residential parking these professionals will struggle hugely to be present in the hospice to provide the very best specialist care we do. Our incomes represent charity


organisation working and with the rising costs of public transport, staff will not be able to pay to come to work. Many of our employees are specialists in their fields and therefore, travel great distances which public transport will also negatively impact. Without residential parking, the community of Farnham risks losing an incredibly valuable resource that the acute sector do not provide.


Support Commuter parking around Waverley Lane and adjoining/adjacent roads should be reduced now that the car park at Farnham Station is in place. These small improvements are important to encourage commuters to use the car park, reduce congestion but allow short term parking for residential visitors. These restrictions should be extended to other roads around Waverley Lane, Menin Road, etc. which becomes extremely congested at school opening and closing times.

Comment Is the proposed restriction necessary for both sides of the street? The main people who use this parking are the workers at the Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice and parking is needed for them and their visitors.

Comment I had to click Old Compton Lane, because that is the nearest to the area I wish to comment and suggest an improvement, of the parking bays outside the Phyllis Tuckwell Hospital. When permission for extended building work was given, part of the agreement was to provide extra parking within the hospital grounds. There were no more bays provided. Now parking roadside on the B3001 MAIN ROAD FOR FARNHAM TO A3 is causing a permanent hazard, if parking is necessary why not remove the grass verge and construct a series of layby parking spaces, to then keep 2 way traffic flowing especially for buses and commercial vehicles, which are having difficulties. I am willing to meet on site to explain further.


It is recommended to proceed as advertised. The changes to parking restrictions are necessary in order to reflect new off street parking facilities at number 5 Old Compton Lane. The existing parking bay must be amended to allow for access to and from these new off street parking facilities.


Drawing No: 24128 St James’s Avenue – FARNHAM CENTRAL


Objection PROPOSED CHANGES ARE UNNECESSARY Footpath RED opposite Stoke Hills Rd is for BIG TRUCKS TO TURN IN. RED at top of road drop curb entry to 6&65. Gate TO PARK & CHILDRENS PLAYGROUND. shows "EMERGENCY ACCESS-NO PARKING". ESSENTIAL that road clear for vehicles medical fire police 24/7. Field North of school NEW DEVELOPMENT, houses & open parking, application active, only access, gate from St James opposite STOKE HILLS Rd. PROPOSED CHANGES DO NOT BENIFIT ANYBODY

Support I would like to register my strong support for the parking measures proposed for St. James Avenue, Farnham. I have been a resident in this road for two years and have witnessed first-hand the exceptional difficulties associated with parking since the introduction of the single yellow line. Members of our Residents Association have been calling for these measures for a significant length of time and I know they would make a immeasurable difference to the quality of life of local residents.

Support We are in complete support of the removal of parking restrictions on St James Avenue.

Support I am in support of removing the parking restrictions to St James Avenue. This would be of great benefit to all local residents, particularly those living on St James Avenue. In light of a proposed new development with extra traffic on this street I would say removing this restriction was vital.

Support I support the expansion of parking areas on st James road. It will provide much needed parking space and will not inhibit the flow of traffic or impact upon pedestrian safety at all.

Support I support the removal of waiting restrictions to parts of St James Avenue.

Support I strongly support the removal of the current parking restrictions on St James Avenue. They have led to great difficulty in finding an available parking space and are completely unnecessary. Pedestrians are able to use the pavement on the other side of the road to get to the park. Parking spaces are extremely restricted on St James Avenue and the problem is only getting worse as more households move to having 2 or more cars. Easing this parking restriction will help immensely. Even better would be to remove the pavement altogether on that side of the road as it is not needed and would be far more useful as official parking.

Support We would confirm our full support for the proposed changes in relation to the the existing waiting ,loading and parking restrictions.

Support As a resident of St James Avenue for 40 years I have seen the parking problems progressively worsen, year on year. This reflects the exponential increase in car ownership over the years, but in a street that has virtually no off-road parking. As a consequence, the residents found it necessary to park on both sides of the road. However when a single yellow line was painted down the entire eastern side of the road some 4 years ago, this practice was not possible during the working day. The residents protested this imposition but we were never really given a satisfactory explanation as to why the line was even necessary in the first place. This yellow line restriction made the parking situation so much worse for residents, but also made it difficult for visitors who drove to Farnham park to exercise their dogs and similarly for those who brought children to the recently


improved playground area at the top of St James Avenue. I therefore strongly support the proposal to alter the parking arrangements for St James Avenue, Farnham. In particular, I am in favour of the revocation of the yellow line on the eastern side of the street. However, for this to be completely effective, vehicles must be allowed to park partly on the road and partly on the pavement. This was the method adopted by the residents (prior to the introduction of the yellow line), as this still leaves plenty of room for emergency vehicles and refuse trucks to reach the park unimpeded. It is probably only necessary to allow parking partly on the road and partly on the pavement on the side of the avenue from which the yellow line is removed. I believe however that it is imperative that these two actions, (removing the yellow line and allowing vehicles to park partly on the pavement), are necessary in combination. This pragmatic solution would significantly ease our parking problems.



Drawing No: 24132 Abbot’s Ride j/w Waverley Lane – FARNHAM CENTRAL


Objection These proposals are detrimental to the local community in particular to the staff, patients & visitors of Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice & parents of local schools. The roads are wide enough to allow for parking without causing any highway safety issues. These community facilities have minimal parking on their sites and we are reaching a point where there will be no on street parking for their users. The gradual encroachment of these parking restrictions, ostensibly to stop commuters parking means that nearly all of the local streets are restricted. The station has responded to this need by putting in extra parking facilities for commuters, but the local users of the hospice & the schools have to park somewhere, & are being left with no options. The roads around this part of South Farnham are wide quiet residential roads and I can see no justifiable reason to restrict parking on them. I can only presume that this is being driven by local residents who have large drives, with no need to park in the street, but would rather not have people parked outside their houses. I am strongly opposed to these proposals.

Objection The hospice provides a valuable service to the community of Farnham in addition to generating income for the town. We have limited on site parking and in order to be able to attend to and support our patients within the community we require a team of employed professionals. Without available residential parking these professionals will struggle hugely to be present in the hospice to provide the very best specialist care we do. Our incomes represent charity organisation working and with the rising costs of public transport, staff will not be able to pay to come to work. Many of our employees are specialists in their fields and therefore, travel great distances which public transport will also negatively impact. Without residential parking, the community of Farnham risks losing an incredibly valuable resource that the acute sector do not provide.

Objection Tuckwell Hospice Care. As a staff member I have to travel by car, due to the nature of my role requiring community visits and difficult public transport links from home. On a daily basis I need to allow significant extra time to find parking and then often have to move my car in the middle of the day too, out of a 4 hour parking bay, again eating into my working day. With very limited on site parking this is an issue that affects all staff and visitors to the Hospice. The Hospice provides a specialist


valuable service caring for the sick and dying in the community and supporting their family members as well. The Hospice relies upon fundraising and charitable donations in order to keep offering and develop the service. If staff cannot park, this uses up valuable work time and impacts upon appointment times. Visitors to the Hospice are often attending appointments or seeing family and friends who are very unwell. Not being able to park can be a source of unwelcome stress and anxiety.

Support Commuter parking around Waverley Lane and adjoining/adjacent roads should be reduced now that the car park at Farnham Station is in place. These small improvements are important to encourage commuters to use the car park, reduce congestion but allow short term parking for residential visitors. These restrictions should be extended to other roads around Waverley Lane, Menin Road, etc. which becomes extremely congested at school opening and closing times.

Support I would like to see changes implemented as suggested on the plans.

Support We are in full agreement and support of the extension of double yellow lines on this corner; however, we would ask if they can be extended a littler further (5 to 10 metres) to take them far as number 58. We often find we cannot exit our property because of cars parked opposite our drive. The new proposals appear to show the yellow lines ending halfway across our driveway. This will encourage car parkers to park up to the edge of the lines preventing and or limiting our access or exit. In addition to this, the corner has become quite busy as Abbots Ride is a cut through road. Cars parked near to the corner are a hazard and many a time we have witnessed near misses or the junction blocked with cars unable to exit or enter the Abbots Ride because of parked cars and only one lane being available. Extending the lines a little further will provide additional needed space at the junction.

Support Again, cars parking on either side of the road too close to the junction of Abbots Ride with Waverley lane cause dangerous obstructions. Extending the parking ban, as proposed, will alleviate this. I am an ex-resident of Abbots Ride. In recent years the increase in parking along the road, together the increased use of Abbots Ride to cut between Tilford Road and Waverley Lane (especially at busy school run times) has mde the change in parking restrictions much more pressing.

Support I wish to support the proposed " no waiting at any time " at the junction of abbots ride and waverley lane- there are often cars parked there, trucks for businesses, lorries etc, making access/ exit at the junction very dangerous, especially as this road is used by parents travelling to south farnham school and st polycarps school on waverley lane and menin way , often forming a queue at the junction .

Support I support the extension of the double yellow lines which will ease the congestion on this corner, especially at school times when there is heavy traffic

Support I support this short addition of double yellow lines at the entrance to Abbots Ride to prevent parking too close to the junction.

Comment my comment relates to southern way but this was not a selectable option. at the end of southern way if you turn right you are faced with 2 car park spaces that I have been informed are a turning zone, despite the fact no one turns in them and they are only ever used for parking, can these spaces be re assigned as parking spaces?

Comment The Abbots Ride Junction yellow lines could be extended as they are not long enough for safety when vehicles enter Abbots Ride as cars are permanently parking too close to the short yellow lines, especially in the hours of darkness when the street lights are turned off, and the parked cars are facing the wrong way and are unlit with no lights on. ps I know it is a 30mph road and lights are not necessary in a 30mph area, but some form of lighting is necessary at this junction.

Officer It is recommended to proceed as advertised.


Recommendation

Drawing No: 24122 Lodge Hill Road – FARNHAM SOUTH


Objection I am one of the owner occupiers of XX Lodge Hill Road and I strongly object to the proposed parking restricted direct outside my house for a number of reasons as stated below. 1. Having cars parked outside MAKES cars slow down and drive more cautiously round the bent in the road. Without cars parked here it would increase the likelihood of someone getting hurt. There is no pavement outside the houses you are proposing to put the yellow lines and pedestrians would be at risk. 2. I need access to my house from Lodge Hill Road, I have elderly parents who are not able to access my house from Dene Lane and there would be no option for disabled access from Dene Lane, disabled access would only be possible from Lodge Hill Road. 3. Dene Lane often becomes blocked with people parking large cars and making entry/access extremely difficult at certain times of the day and this is lightly to get worse with the school traffic and the increased popularity of the green. 4. Once the new pavilion is built on the Bourne Green this will again increase the level of traffic in Dene Lane and make it impossible for me and other members of my family who live at home and visitors to park in Dene Lane.

Objection I object to the proposal to put parking restrictions outside my house. We need to be able to park outside our house in order for our elderly in laws to visit. they cannot walk uphill from Dene Lane as it is too steep. Having cars parked outside does slow down the traffic along Lodge hill Rd, which is a rat run during commuting hours. Having cars park outside does protect our garden wall ,which has been damaged by vehicles reversing back into the gap when coming face to face with on coming traffic. If there is a permanent gap there this will happen far more often.

Objection I live at X Lodge Hill Road (LHR). Currently, I and my visitors have no problem parking outside my property. We feel we have every right to be able to park conveniently outside our house, especially when we have shopping etc to unload. The only change to current arrangements that we would support would be to make it a 'residents only' parking zone. Restricting parking in an already busy area next to a school will greatly exacerbate the parking problem (which really only exists at the beginning and end of the school day), and simply shift it elsewhere, notably to Dene Lane (to the


rear of my property) which is already in a bad state of repair and cannot cope with any more traffic. It is already regularly blocked - and damaged - by cars delivering children to school and the play park, and then attempting 5 point turns to get back out onto LHR by the Spar shop, which itself is regularly blocked by delivery vans and is a dangerous enough junction already, without cars being enabled to approach fast along Lodge Hill Road if the parked cars were removed. If the intention is to avoid congestion at the junction of Dene Lane and Lodge Hill Road this proposal will actually exacerbate the problem still further, because of the difficulties exiting Dene Lane. If the intention is to allow space for 2-way traffic all along LHR, this will have the unintended consequence of encouraging traffic to travel even faster, making the Dene Lane exit even more difficult and dangerous. One actual benefit of the current parking arrangements is that the parked cars force traffic to slow down before reaching the area where children cross the road on their way to school.

Objection Please note my objections to a 'no parking' zone outside 4 & 4a Lodge Hill Rd. 1. Residents of these properties will be forced to park in Dene Lane which is narrow, provides no turning facility and frequently gridlocked by parents parking to bring and collect children from South Farnham School and also inaccessible when delivery vehicles unload at the Bourne Stores. 2. Resulting increased traffic levels in Dene Lane will present a danger to many young children who frequent the play park and the green for football, cricket and general play. 3. Current arrangements with cars parked outside the above houses causes traffic to slow down. With no pavement outside these properties, pedestrians will be at serious risk from oncoming vehicles. A 'residents only' parking scenario outside nos. 4 & 4a would be a compromise as it would dramatically reduce the number of vehicles parking here and the residents would not be forced to park in Dene Lane.

Objection The large increase in school numbers at SF Infants has resulted in increased traffic at peak times at the junction of LHR/Dene Lane/Frensham Rd. Bad driving by parents is increasing the hazards to children at peak times. These junctions will remain dangerous regardless of dble yellow lines outside 4 & 4a LHR. The inconvenience caused to residents of never being allowed to park outside their houses is a heavy handed response to a problem which exists only at school drop off (30mins) and pick up (30mins)ie 1 hr in total during the day. For the remainder of the day very few cars are parked here. Access to 4 & 4a from Dene Lane is not adequate for the elderly, disabled or wheelchair users. A more acceptable solution would be allowing residents a parking permit and limiting parking restrictions to the appropriate peak times only. Parents will park on dble yellows if they are not policed regularly as they do on those outside no 1 LHR

Objection The cause of excessive traffic on Lodge Hill Rd at peak times (8.45-9.10am, 2.45-3.15pm) is the increased intake at SF School by 90 to 270 children over recent years. The Head says he wants another 90. The dangers to children are caused by too many cars and bad driving behaviour, principally by parents. Drivers mount the pavement & are intolerant. SF must take responsibility for resolving the problem it has created. The dble yellows response will inconvenience residents, is disproportionate, unfair and the proposal will not reduce the dangers to children.


If the proposed dble yellows on LHR go ahead, despite the above, then residents should have parking permits, or, at a minimum, restrictions should apply only at peak times, limiting residents' inconvenience. Few cars park in the proposed dble yellow zone during the day. It is only parked up at peak times. New dble yellows outside 4 /4a will stop residents parking outside their own homes. Access to 4/4a for the elderly/disabled is difficult from Dene Lne (DL). Wheelchair access for 4a is only possible from LHR. Removing parking from outside these houses will increase traffic speed. DL is hazardous at peak times with many children around. This is a lane and not suitable for the increase in school traffic, residents & their visitors' cars that new dble yellows would bring. Drivers park on the dble yellows on the corner of LHR/DL opposite no 1, LHR, increasing the hazard at this dangerous junction. The dble yellows are never enforced. Only regular policing would stop parents parking on new dble yellows.

Support I am a parent at South Farnham School and live locally in the Bourne - I drive along Lodge Hill road at peak (school run) and non peak times. Currently there is no safe place to pull in (particularly on the bend) as cars are parked all the way along the road and it is reduced to single lane traffic. My car has been scratched by another car pulling in to avoid an oncoming car. In addition, cars constantly mount the pavement to avoid other cars and I have also witnessed 2 altercations between motorists arguing about who had right of way on the road. A passing place/double yellow lines will make this road safer.

Comment The section of lodge Hill Road between #2 and #16 is hazardous for pedestrians. There have been several 'near misses' involving cars on the pavement and small children walking to the South Farnham Infant Site on the parallel road, School Lane. Cars parking for the school run make the section of Lodge Hill Road between #6 and #2 a one way road, added to which there is a bend so cars can't see before meeting another car head on - if there was a passing place these cars would then be able to pass without having to mount the pavement. I believe it ought to be single yellow lines between 8.30am and 9.30am plus 2.30pm and 3.30pm on a weekday to minimise disruption to residents. Thank you for considering the safety of school children on this section of road.


It is recommended not to proceed due to the objections from adjacent and nearby properties.

Drawing No: 24130 Fox Road – FARNHAM SOUTH


Comment Please extend the restriction along both sides of Fox Road as far as the garages.


Both my driveway and that of nos. 1-4 Fox Road and rear driveways to 34 and 36 Frensham Road, are often only accessible by driving over the pavements due to cars parked opposite them on this narrow road. I otherwise support the restrictions being introduced.



Drawing No: 24043, 24055 Tanners Lane (Permits) - HASLEMERE


Objection By making the area's that are proposed for parking permits you will drive the commuters and people who work in the town into the local car parks, which will then leave less parking spaces for the people of Haslemere and surrounding area to come and shop in the town. We then have the problem of less business for the shops and in turn may force the independent shops to close down.

Objection I would like to object to the parking on Tanners lane between Lower Street and the railway bridge becoming permit holders only . When we bought our house two years ago we bought it knowing we could if we wanted, park in Tanners lane restriction free . If the changes proposed are brought in we will lose this right, and yet residents from a long way off in Shepherds Hill and other streets will have the right to park there Presumably the people in those streets knew the parking situation when they bought their houses. If you want to help the people of these other streets you could give them parking permits for the public car parks which would be closer for them and not involve any infrastructure costs to the council Just to the south of the railway bridge on the western side of Tanners lane there is a block of three garages (do not appear on your map) that are laying overgrown and unused; I think if the residents of Tanners Lane wanted more parking they would be putting them to good use. Please leave things as they are in Tanners lane it works well as it is. Thankyou

Objection The spaces adjacent to the tanners lane park, should have a residents OR two hour parking restriction, to enable persons to be able to use the park and to visit friends and family in and around the tanners lane, bridge road lower street area, as there will be no other short stay, free parking around that area. Unfortunately commuters will not pay for car parking if they can find a free spot within a 15min walk. With many of these proposals, the commuters cars will become pushed to Hill Road, Church Lane, Beech Road, Pine View Close, Bunch Lane etc and we will be having new proposals in 3 years time, when these residents become fed up with commuters.

Support So pleased that this is finally happening, I just hope there is enough space on Tanners Lane seeing as the layby on Shepherds Hill will be for Shepherds Hill residents only.

Support I live at number XX Lower Street, in Haslemere. I write to support the proposed plans for parking permits on Tanners Lane. The pricing, is reasonable and will enable young families/young people an affordable long term parking solution. Currently Tanners Lane, is used by many commuters...parking there to save the car park charges at the station. By allowing for this new permit scheme to be implemented; it should present a saving to local residents (without available parking) and offer a long term


solution for transport in the area. I thoroughly support the proposed plans, that the council have presented.

Support I am a resident of Lower Street and have 2 young children so am desperate for this parking space. I am currently parked on Hill Road which must frustrate the residents there. My only concern is that there will not be enough spaces on Tanners Lane for the Lower Street residents. The sooner there is residents parking the better.

Support Support for Parking for Residents of Shepherd's Hill and Lower Street

Comment I have your letter of 12/1/18 but I am not clear how this might affect parking permits for Lower Street. I wrote originally requesting that as a resident and owner of Lower Street, myself and my partner Robin Goldsmith should be afforded the ability to have a permit each at a reasonable cost. I have no objection to proposals affecting others provided my position is not compromised and they are not to my detriment. Otherwise I would object.

Comment We live at X Church Green Cottages. There is already huge pressure on parking outside our property caused by rail commuters. This is exacerbated by parents dropping off and picking up from St Bartholomew's Primary School and people attending church services and events. If we move one of cars from outside the property in the daytime during the week it is often impossible to get a space anywhere near our property on our return. A further reduction in the available parking will make the situation even worse. If the proposed parking restrictions were to go ahead we would strongly request that a residents' parking scheme is introduced outside 1,2 and 3 Church Green Cottages.

Comment I would like to understand why there is a proposal to put in permit holders parking along Tanners lane (particular the section near the tanners lane car park and who these permits will be issued to? If the intention is to offer them to residents living in the road, it is my understanding that all houses along this road have access to off street parking, which drives me to ask why is the same parking situation not proposed for church road to limit all day parking of commuters and enable people living in church road the ability to have a friend over without them having to park quite some distance away and walk?



Drawing No: 24117 Shepherd’s Hill - HASLEMERE


Support As a resident of Shepherds Hill, trying to find somewhere to park a huge problem. More often than not, the lay by at the top of the hill will be full and I will have to find parking elsewhere, usually some distance away from my house. This is particularly frustrating if I have shopping to unload as there is nowhere to safely stop the car near the house. Having permit holder only parking for residents will be hugely beneficial to all of us living on Shepherds Hill. It will also address the issue of so many cars parked in other residential roads in the surrounding area.

Support I am strongly in favour of resident permit parking for Shepherd's Hill.

Support I would like to strongly support the parking scheme for Lower ST and Shepards Hill in Haslemere and I look forward to


receiving my first permit after living here for over 10 years This scheme is warmly welcomed and will make my quality of life much better Better for children and getting them to school and also not having to pay parking fines when there is just nowhere to park

Support Support for Parking for Residents of Shepherd's Hill and Lower Street

Comment I support the proposals but have a couple of observations. There are more people on Shepherds Hill with cars than there are parking spaces at the top of the hill. I would a) restrict parking on Shepherds Hill to Shepherds Hill residents and b) develop the grassy area in the lay-by to create more spaces, as has been the case in the past. Thank you.

Comment Thank you for the proposal. In principle I am very much in support of resident parking on Shepherds Hill. Query why the space at Shepherds Hill is being opened up to residents of other streets. Space in the lay-by is extremely limited and there are more households with cars on Shepherds Hill than potential parking spaces. Please also consider the potential to develop the grassed area at the lay-by into drive in parking spaces. I understand that this has been the case in the past (in the 1950s), and would make a lot of sense now. Kind regards

Comment See my earlier comments in this form in relation to Tanners Lane which apply equally here



Drawing No: 24059 Museum Hill - HASLEMERE


Objection We live on Petworth Road and are writing to express our strong objections to the proposed parking restrictions on Museum Hill. Clearly, those affected by the proposals are not merely the residents of Museum Hill but others (including us) who live in the near vicinity and who use Museum Hill for parking. The public consultation will need to include those affected in the wider area. In this context, these plans are prejudiced against those with no parking on Petworth Road, who have for many years relied on Museum Hill for parking. Many Petworth Road residents have little or no parking available to them, thus putting them in a much worse position than many on Museum Hill. Our house like others on Petworth Road fronts onto double yellow lines and the only possibility for on-street parking without a long walk from the car to the house is to park on Museum Hill, where parking is already extremely difficult. When we brought our house, we were already concerned by the lack of parking. It was a determining factor for us ultimately buying, that we knew there was a limited amount of on-street parking on Museum Hill. Should these proposals go ahead, the already extremely restricted parking situation for us and many other Petworth Road residents will become far worse. It will


make finding a parking space extremely difficult and will push us further away from our homes to compete with communters and workers for the few spaces available around Haslemere, where free parking is becoming extremely scarce. This is especially challenging for those with disabilities and young children. We would like to point out that the proposal is deeply inequitable. There are only two houses on Museum Hill without a provate driveway or off street parking and this proposal grants two spaces to each of these two households and removes available space for residents on Petworth Road who have no private parking and no-street parking elsewhere either. We and other Petworth Road residents were dismayed to find that these proposals appeared to have advanced some way along without anybody in Petworth Road being notified. It seems that certain parties on Museum Hill wished to improve their own parking situation and garner support from neighbours without discussing with those of us living on Petworth Road. With your help, we believe that a fairer solution can be reached which is more even handed and does not unfairly prejudge those on Petworth Road who have no on-street parking. We suggest that the proposals increase the number of permitted bays on Museum Hill and that permits are made available to all local residents who have no parking at all so that they each have one space per household. It is very encouraging to hear the Council is addressing the concerns of those on Shepards Hill, who are in a very similar situation to those on Petworth Road and we therefore hope the same principle will apply in this case.

Objection By making the area's that are proposed for parking permits you will drive the commuters and people who work in the town into the local car parks, which will then leave less parking spaces for the people of Haslemere and surrounding area to come and shop in the town. We then have the problem of less business for the shops and in turn may force the independent shops to close down.

Objection The proposal says that only residents of Museum Hill can apply for a permit to park in the spaces on Museum Hill (permit S). This is unreasonable and should be extended to residents of Petworth Road who do not have private off-street parking. The vast majority of people living on Museum Hill already have private off-street parking and should not be given access to spaces where those people living within very close proximity on a Petworth Road have no private parking at all. This is especially the case where there are families with small children living on Petworth Road.

Objection As my client’s properties about the footpath which sits some 3 feet or so above the Petworth Road carriageway, there is no scope her to install any sort of driveway to allow her or her visitors to park any car within her own ground. She and they rely on Museum Hill as the only parking within reasonable walking distance. Accordingly she objects to the current proposal to limit parking on Museum Hill to a few, favoured, properties found there. The proposal is deeply unfair given that there are only two houses on Museum Hill without a private driveway, the proposal grants two spaces to each of these houses and removes other spaces which could be allocated to residents on Petworth Road and their visitors . A fairer solution can be reached by 1 banning non-permit parking between say 1030 and 1430 in the working week, so ‘moving on’ any local commuter parking 2 increasing the number of permitted bays on Museum Hill and reducing the ‘yellow lines’ accordingly to allow for parking by Petworth Road properties such as my client’s, allocating permits to local residents on the Petworth Road who have no parking so that they each have at least one space per household.

Objection We live at number XX Petworth Road and are writing to express our strong objections to the proposed parking restrictions on


Museum Hill, Haslemere. Clearly, those affected by the proposals are not merely the residents of Museum Hill but others (including us) who live in the near vicinity and who have used Museum Hill for parking. The public consultation will need to include those affected in the wider area. In this context, these plans are prejudiced against those with no parking on Petworth Road, who have for many, many years relied on Museum Hill for parking. We set out in more detail below the reasons why this proposal unfairly prejudices those on Petworth Road. As mentioned above, some Petworth Road residents have no parking available to them, thus putting them in a much worse position than many on Museum Hill. Our house, like many others on Petworth Road, fronts onto double yellow lines and the only possibility for on street parking without a long walk from the car to the house is to park on Museum Hill. Parking is already extremely difficult for us and many like us on Petworth Road. When we bought our house, we were concerned by the lack of parking. It was a determining factor for us in ultimately deciding to purchase, that we knew there was unrestricted parking on the public highway on Museum Hill. Should the proposals go ahead, the already extremely restricted parking situation for us and many other Petworth Road residents will become far worse. It will make finding a parking space extremely difficult and will push us further away from our homes to compete with commuters and local workers for fewer spaces in Haslemere where parking is becoming increasingly scarce. This will be especially challenging for those with disabilities, young families or who need daily medical care. We would also point out that the proposal is deeply inequitable; there are only two houses on Museum Hill without a private driveway and the proposal grants two spaces to each house and consequently removes available spaces for residents on Petworth Road who have no private parking and no on-street parking either. We and many other residents of Petworth Road were dismayed to find that these proposals appeared to have advanced some way without any consultation with those on Petworth Road. It seems that certain parties on Museum Hill wished to improve their own parking situation (whilst also having access to private driveways) and garnered support from neighbours. These proposals were never discussed with those on Petworth Road who use Museum Hill for parking. We do expect there to be a full and proper consultation with all of those local residents affected; the affected residents live in the vicinity and not just on Museum Hill. The reduction of available parking would also devalue the affected houses on Petworth Road. As mentioned above, the ability to park on Museum Hill was a key part of our decision to purchase and the availability of parking on Museum Hill was therefore factored into the value. If this ability is lost, it will have a direct impact on the value of our property and of many other properties on Petworth Road. With your help, we believe that a fairer solution can be reached which is more even-handed and does not unfairly prejudice those on Petworth Road who have no on-street parking. We suggest that the proposals increase the number of permitted bays on Museum Hill and that permits are allocated to local residents who have no parking at all so that they each have one space per household. It is very encouraging to hear the Council is addressing the concerns of those on Shepard’s Hill who are in a very similar situation to those on Petworth Road and we therefore hope the same principle will apply in this case.

Objection Clearly, those affected by the proposals are not merely the residents of Museum Hill but others who live in the near vicinity and who use Museum Hill for parking. These plans are prejudiced against those with no parking on Petworth Road, who have for many years relied on Museum Hill for parking.


Some Petworth Road residents have no parking at all, thus putting them in a far worse position than many on Museum Hill. Our houses front onto double yellow lines and the only possibility for parking, without a long walk, is to park on Museum Hill. Should the proposals go ahead, the already extremely restricted parking situation will become far worse. It will push us further away from our homes to compete with commuters and local workers for fewer spaces in Haslemere where parking is becoming increasingly scarce. The reduction of available parking would also devalue the affected houses on Petworth Road. The ability to park on Museum Hill was a key part of our decision to purchase and the availability of parking on Museum Hill was therefore factored into the value. If this ability is lost, it will have a direct impact on the value of our properties. The proposal is deeply inequitable; there are only two houses on Museum Hill without a private driveway and the proposal grants two spaces to each of these houses and consequently removes available spaces for residents on Petworth Road. These proposals were never discussed with those on Petworth Road who use Museum Hill for parking. We expect there to be a full and proper consultation with all of those local residents affected. A fairer solution can be reached by increasing the number of permitted bays on Museum Hill and allocating permits to local residents who have no parking so that they each have one space per household. The Council is addressing the concerns of those on Shepard’s Hill, who are in a similar situation to us, and we therefore hope the same principle will apply, in this case.

Objection Clearly, those affected by the proposals are not merely the residents of Museum Hill but others who live in the near vicinity and who use Museum Hill for parking. We are actually residents of Petworth rd with parking on museum hill who consider this to be unfair. Some other Petworth Road residents have no parking at all, thus putting them in a far worse position than us. Our neighbours who do not have parking but also live on Petworth road face a continuous struggle. Should the proposals go ahead, the already extremely restricted parking situation will become far worse. It will push our neighbours further away from their homes to compete with commuters and local workers for fewer spaces in Haslemere where parking is becoming increasingly scarce. The reduction of available parking would also devalue the affected houses on Petworth Road. The proposal is deeply inequitable; there are only two houses on Museum Hill without a private driveway and the proposal grants two spaces to each of these houses and consequently removes available spaces for residents on Petworth Road. These proposals were never discussed with those on Petworth Road who use Museum Hill for parking. Even with us and we have parking on the road! We expect there to be a full and proper consultation with all of those local residents affected. I am particularly concerned for my neighbour living on Petworth road, Sally Fletcher, who is elderly and requires daily nurse visits. Her nurses find parking and getting to Sally for her care, hard enough as it is. The Council is addressing the concerns of those on Shepard’s Hill, who are in a similar situation to our neighbours and we therefore hope the same principle will apply, in this case.

Objection This plan is utterly unfair towards Petworth Road residents. When hearing of these plans I was expecting Waverley to be alleviating the current parking crises that effects Petworth Road residents on a day to day basis. Instead, we are told that 2 houses on museum hill that already have private parking are now entitled to obtain 2 additional parking spaces over Petworth Road residents that have no allocated spaces and are continually losing areas to park I.e. behind boots pharmacy. If this is to go ahead, can some of the unnecessary double yellow lines be reduced? For example, at the bottom of museum hill. As a tax


payer, (not the only one in haslemere I know) it truly is disappointing to hear of these plans through a neighbour without any communication from Waverley. Very poor form. I hope you take my comments into consideration.

Objection Those affected by the proposals are not merely the residents of Museum Hill but others who live in the near vicinity and who use Museum Hill for parking. These plans are prejudiced against those with no parking on Petworth Road, who have for many years relied on Museum Hill for parking. Some Petworth Road residents have no parking at all, thus putting them in a far worse position than many on Museum Hill. Most of the houses on Petworth Road front onto double yellow lines; their only possibility for parking, without a long walk, is to park on Museum Hill. Should the proposals go ahead, the already extremely restricted parking situation will become far worse. Crucially, the proposal is deeply inequitable; there are only two houses on Museum Hill without a private driveway and the proposal grants two spaces to each of these houses and consequently removes available spaces for residents on Petworth Road. These proposals were never discussed with those on Petworth Road who use Museum Hill for parking. We expect there to be a full and proper consultation with all of those local residents affected. A fairer solution can be reached by increasing the number of permitted bays on Museum Hill and allocating permits to local residents; one space per household. The Council is addressing the concerns of those on Shepard’s Hill, who are in a similar situation to us, and we therefore hope the same principle will apply, in this case.

Objection I am a resident of Petworth Road, Haslemere. It is a main road with double yellow lines and no provision for parking. The houses on the south side of Petworth Road are terraced and built right onto the pavement with no parking spaces at the rear. The nearest roads to park are Museum Hill, Hill Road and College Hill. I object to the current proposals because I do not believe the proposals actually help the parking situation in Haslemere. Instead I have come up with some alternative ideas. The parking situation in central Haslemere has become difficult in recent years for 3 reasons: (1) The (once free) car park in the town centre at the back of the shops (accessed between Liphook Valet and Warren Powell Richards) has had barriers put up so that the car park is empty and not being used. Therefore approximately 50 spaces cannot be used anymore. (2) The Lloyds Bank car park has been blocked from access (apparently from a private landowner and not the bank). This car park is now empty and cannot be used because of the barriers. This means that approximately 10 spaces cannot be used anymore. (3) Excessive painting of double yellow lines has taken the much needed parking spaces out of action along Hill Road and the surrounding roads. As a result, local workers are being forced to park in the places which were once only used by residents. Although there are pay and display car parks in town, it simply isn't financially feasible for workers on low wages to pay these charges. The problem can be solved if the council took the following measures: (1) reduction of double yellow lines In some places at road junctions, the double yellow lines are the length of 2 cars. However they could be reduced to the length of just 1 car. This would free up at least 6 spaces. (2) creation of 3 new spaces at the bottom of museum hill


The verge at the bottom of Museum Hill could be cut into to create 3 new parking spaces (3) retain control over the large car park at the back of the Liphook Valet/Warren Powell Richards It seems very unjust that a car park with approximately 50 spaces is sitting empty, with blockades to stop people parking there when there are so many people struggling to park. The council could take action to stop this. This could be done through purchase, or a compulsory purchase or through legal proceedings. (4) the council could take action against the land owner who is blocking Lloyds bank and preventing the bank workers from parking there in the day and the local residents from parking there at night.

Objection My objection is that there is no allowance for residents of Petworth Road in parking, that do not have drives nor access to park cars whatsoever. There appears to be only 4 residents parking permits available of which no resident of Petworth Road can apply for. This is discriminatory and thereby disingenuous and not viable as there are more than 4 cars, resident’s cars, parked on museum hill and do not cause blockage restriction nor safety concerns. Please provide full disclosure under freedom of information of all consultants’ reviews and information provided and undertaken by WBC in establishing the acceptability of this discriminatory position. Equally consideration should be given as to a judicial review in this regard.

Objection Clearly, those affected by the proposals are not merely the residents of Museum Hill but others who live in the immediate vicinity and who use Museum Hill for parking. These plans are prejudiced against residents of Petworth Road who have no or limited parking, and who have for many years relied on Museum Hill for parking. Our houses front onto double yellow lines and for many of us, the principal option for parking, without a long walk, is Museum Hill. Should the proposals go ahead, the already restricted parking situation will become far worse. It will push us further away from our homes to compete with commuters and local workers for fewer spaces in central Haslemere where parking is increasingly scarce. The proposal is deeply inequitable; there are only two houses on Museum Hill without a private driveway and the proposal grants two spaces to each of these houses and consequently removes available spaces for residents of Petworth Road. These proposals were never discussed with residents of Petworth Road who use Museum Hill for parking. We expect there to be a full and proper consultation with all of those local residents affected. A fairer solution can be reached by increasing the number of permitted bays on Museum Hill and enabling residents of the immediate area of Petworth Road to also apply for parking permits in this location. The Council is addressing the concerns of those on Shepard’s Hill, who are in a similar situation to us, and we therefore hope the same principle will apply in our case.

Objection Clearly, those affected by the proposals are not merely the residents of Museum Hill but others who live in the near vicinity and who use Museum Hill for parking. These plans are prejudiced against those with no parking on Petworth Road, who have for many years relied on Museum Hill for parking. Some Petworth Road residents like myself have no parking at all, thus putting me in a far worse position than many on Museum Hill. My house front onto double yellow lines and the only possibility for parking, without a long walk, is to park on Museum Hill. Should the proposals go ahead, the already extremely restricted parking situation will become far worse. It will push me further away from our homes to compete with commuters and local workers for fewer spaces in Haslemere where parking is becoming


increasingly scarce. The reduction of available parking would also devalue the affected houses on Petworth Road. The ability to park on Museum Hill was a key part of our decision to purchase and the availability of parking on Museum Hill was therefore factored into the value. If this ability is lost, it will have a direct impact on the value of our properties. The proposal is deeply inequitable; there are only two houses on Museum Hill without a private driveway and the proposal grants two spaces to each of these houses and consequently removes available spaces for residents on Petworth Road. These proposals were never discussed with those on Petworth Road who use Museum Hill for parking. We expect there to be a full and proper consultation with all of those local residents affected. A fairer solution can be reached by increasing the number of permitted bays on Museum Hill and allocating permits to those residents on Petworth Road who have no parking so that they each have one space per household.

Objection Clearly, those affected by the proposals are not merely the residents of Museum Hill but others who live in the near vicinity and who use Museum Hill for parking. These plans are prejudiced against those with no parking on Petworth Road, who have for many years relied on Museum Hill for parking. Some Petworth Road residents have no parking at all, thus putting them in a far worse position than many on Museum Hill. Our houses front onto double yellow lines and the only possibility for parking, without a long walk, is to park on Museum Hill. Should the proposals go ahead, the already extremely restricted parking situation will become far worse. It will push us further away from our homes to compete with commuters and local workers for fewer spaces in Haslemere where parking is becoming increasingly scarce. The reduction of available parking would also devalue the affected houses on Petworth Road. The ability to park on Museum Hill was a key part of our decision to purchase and the availability of parking on Museum Hill was therefore factored into the value. If this ability is lost, it will have a direct impact on the value of our properties. The proposal is deeply inequitable; there are only two houses on Museum Hill without a private driveway and the proposal grants two spaces to each of these houses and consequently removes available spaces for residents on Petworth Road. These proposals were never discussed with those on Petworth Road who use Museum Hill for parking. We expect there to be a full and proper consultation with all of those local residents affected A fairer solution can be reached by increasing the number of permitted bays on Museum Hill and allocating permits to local residents who have no parking so that they each have one space per household. The Council is addressing the concerns of those on Shepard’s Hill, who are in a similar situation to us, and we therefore hope the same principle will apply, in this case.

Objection Clearly, those affected by the proposals are not merely the residents of Museum Hill but others who live in the near vicinity and who use Museum Hill for parking. These plans are prejudiced against those with no parking on Petworth Road, who have for many years relied on Museum Hill for parking. Some Petworth Road residents have no parking at all, thus putting them in a far worse position than many on Museum Hill. Our houses front onto double yellow lines and the only possibility for parking, without a long walk, is to park on Museum Hill. Should the proposals go ahead, the already extremely restricted parking situation will become far worse. It will push us further away from our homes to compete with commuters and local workers for fewer spaces in Haslemere where parking is becoming increasingly scarce. The reduction of available parking would also devalue the affected houses on Petworth Road. The ability to park on Museum


Hill was a key part of our decision to purchase and the availability of parking on Museum Hill was therefore factored into the value. If this ability is lost, it will have a direct impact on the value of our properties. The proposal is deeply inequitable; there are only two houses on Museum Hill without a private driveway and the proposal grants two spaces to each of these houses and consequently removes available spaces for residents on Petworth Road. These proposals were never discussed with those on Petworth Road who use Museum Hill for parking. We expect there to be a full and proper consultation with all of those local residents affected A fairer solution can be reached by increasing the number of permitted bays on Museum Hill and allocating permits to local residents who have no parking so that they each have one space per household. The Council is addressing the concerns of those on Shepard’s Hill, who are in a similar situation to us, and we therefore hope the same principle will apply, in this case.

Objection Clearly, those affected by the proposals are not merely the residents of Museum Hill but others who live in the near vicinity and who use Museum Hill for parking. These plans are prejudiced against those with no parking on Petworth Road, who have for many years relied on Museum Hill for parking. Some Petworth Road residents have no parking at all, thus putting them in a far worse position than many on Museum Hill. Our houses front onto double yellow lines and the only possibility for parking, without a long walk, is to park on Museum Hill. Should the proposals go ahead, the already extremely restricted parking situation will become far worse. It will push us further away from our homes to compete with commuters and local workers for fewer spaces in Haslemere where parking is becoming increasingly scarce. The reduction of available parking would also devalue the affected houses on Petworth Road. The ability to park on Museum Hill was a key part of our decision to purchase and the availability of parking on Museum Hill was therefore factored into the value. If this ability is lost, it will have a direct impact on the value of our properties. The proposal is deeply inequitable; there are only two houses on Museum Hill without a private driveway and the proposal grants two spaces to each of these houses and consequently removes available spaces for residents on Petworth Road. These proposals were never discussed with those on Petworth Road who use Museum Hill for parking. We expect there to be a full and proper consultation with all of those local residents affected A fairer solution can be reached by increasing the number of permitted bays on Museum Hill and allocating permits to local residents who have no parking so that they each have one space per household. The Council is addressing the concerns of those on Shepard’s Hill, who are in a similar situation to us, and we therefore hope the same principle will apply, in this case.

Objection Adding 4 permit spaces seems very strange given the number of local residents that park in the area - including most of my neighbours in Petworth Road. I would also like any restrictions that do come into to place to only be operational on Monday to Friday.

Objection I would like to object strongly to the proposed parking restrictions on Museum Hill. Please see the objections as cited below. I would also like to add that I am an Oncology Nurse working unsociable hours at the Royal Marsden Hospital. I leave work at 18.00hrs to start my night shift at Sutton which starts at 20.00 until 08.30, I arrive home at 10.00 after a 16 hour from door to door shift exhausted and do not want the nightmare of looking high and low for a parking space. Clearly, those affected by the proposals are not merely the residents of Museum Hill but others who live in the near vicinity and who use Museum Hill for parking. These plans are prejudiced against those with no parking on Petworth Road, who have for


many years relied on Museum Hill for parking. Some Petworth Road residents have no parking at all, thus putting them in a far worse position than many on Museum Hill. Our houses front onto double yellow lines and the only possibility for parking, without a long walk, is to park on Museum Hill. Should the proposals go ahead, the already extremely restricted parking situation will become far worse. It will push us further away from our homes to compete with commuters and local workers for fewer spaces in Haslemere where parking is becoming increasingly scarce. The reduction of available parking would also devalue the affected houses on Petworth Road. The ability to park on Museum Hill was a key part of our decision to purchase and the availability of parking on Museum Hill was therefore factored into the value. If this ability is lost, it will have a direct impact on the value of our properties. The proposal is deeply inequitable; there are only two houses on Museum Hill without a private driveway and the proposal grants two spaces to each of these houses and consequently removes available spaces for residents on Petworth Road. These proposals were never discussed with those on Petworth Road who use Museum Hill for parking. We expect there to be a full and proper consultation with all of those local residents affected. A fairer solution can be reached by increasing the number of permitted bays on Museum Hill and allocating permits to local residents who have no parking so that they each have one space per household. The Council is addressing the concerns of those on Shepard’s Hill, who are in a similar situation to us, and we therefore hope the same principle will apply, in this case.

Objection As a resident of Petworth Road who relies on Museum Hill for parking, I object to the proposed Museum Hill Residents Parking Scheme on the following grounds; 1. Local residents, including those on Petworth Road were not consulted in the preliminary parking review. Why not? 2. Why do the majority of residents of Museum Hill need Residents Parking when they already have private driveways? I believe the plan has been submitted to prevent parking, not to ease the situation. At present, there is room for approximately 8 vehicles to park on the lower section of Museum Hill. I do not believe the residents of Museum Hill require that number of additional parking places 3. The plans are grossly unfair to the residents of Petworth Road who have no parking at all. We have double yellow lines outside our property and have no option other than to find on-street parking 4. The plans grant two spaces each of the two houses on Museum Hill who are in the same situation as those houses on Petworth Road. Be consistent and give them the same parking rights as the residents of Petworth Road, e.g. one space per household. This would give everyone a fair chance and would help families with young children and the elderly 5. There is sufficient space for additional parking on Museum Hill without it causing a hazard to other road users, i.e. on the outside of the bend 6. Some of the available parking spaces are taken by people conducting business in the town. More, reasonably priced parking is required, a situation not helped by the closure of the area to the rear of Boots on the High Street

Objection I strongly object to the proposal to make parking on Museum Hill more difficult for the residents of Petworth Road the majority of whom have not got a parking space. I have been resident at this address for 18 yrs and it is becoming increasingly difficult to park, available spaces on the hill are often taken by non residents i.e people wanting free parking while at work or shopping. It seems very unfair that we are penalised because our address is not Museum Hill even though we are only1 minute away on foot. I will be 70 in April whilst my mobility at present is o.k i am concerned for the future as i would very much like to remain in


Petworth Road but would have to think again if this was approved

Support I am strongly in favour of resident permit parking being introduced for Museum Hill.

Support The proposed zone will allow residents to come and go during the day without the current problem of all available spaces being filled.

Support I support the proposal to create residents only parking in Museum Hill at the site indicated on the Waverley Borough Council Map.

Support I support the provision of residents parking in Museum Hill Haslemere.

Support This is so necessary now, as residents can rarely park outside their houses in the day.

Support Dear Sir, Thank you so much. I am delighted that at last I am going to be able to park outside my own house. The parking situation has become so difficult and has put both myself ( aged 71 and post hip operations) and my young grand children in a certain amount of danger as we negotiate long steep distances on foot with shopping etc where-ever I may have been able to find a legal parking space. I am so very pleased that a solution has now been offered and will be happy to meet the requirements for residents' and visitors' parking permits as soon as possible. I would also like to mention that the lay by outside no.s 3 and 5 Museum Hill was historically used by the residents of those houses before the onset of a multitude of car users looking for parking. Again, many thanks, Yours sincerely,

Support We are supportive of the new proposals to restrict parking to street residents. The proposed residents permit cost of around £50 per year will compare favourably to the average annual penalty charges levied for parking outside our own frontage, usually thanks to an alleged encroachment on a double yellow line close to the nearest point of access (!) We are not entirely clear whether any other parking permits from nearby streets will be valid for use on Museum Hill. We'd also like to encourage the parking plan to AVOID ASSIGNING INDIVIDUAL BAYS on the north side of the hill. *** Maximum flexibility is better preserved by leaving the assigned 75 metre (approx) length open to any and all lengths/types of permitted vehicles.

Support As a resident of Museum Hill, I am strongly in favour of the proposed Resident Permit Parking Scheme directly outside our property. However, we frequently have issues with vehicles parked too close, or partially across our drive, obstructing our view of traffic coming up the hill. For this reason, I would ask that marked bays are positioned at a safe distance from our drive.

Support I support a small number of permit bays for residents on Museum Hill, Haslemere

Comment I fully support the proposed parking changes to Museum Hill. My comment is to request that Parking Permit holders parking is also introduced to College Hill Terrace. The drawings clearly show that the roads around the centre of Haslemere have parking restrictions applied. CHT is a very narrow road and not all residents have driveways. We have constant problems from non-residents parking on the road - often for 12 hours during weekdays, taking up much needed car parking space for residents. There is


often inconsiderate parking, namely blocking driveways and gates. Deliveries, ambulances and fire engines have struggled to gain access to the road because so many cars are parked along it. Residents parking would appear to be a good solution to the issue.

Comment See my earlier comments in this form in relation to Tanners Lane which apply equally here Comment As a resident in Petworth Road there is no off street parking available other than Museum Hill. This is fine but it is

now increasingly difficult to get a space due to Haslemere employees and shoppers parking in these spaces (especially since car park behind Collins wood now payable). It is important that those few houses on Petworth Road are able to apply for a residents parking permit on Museum Hill. Would it be possible to have additional permit holders parking on the Hill for residents ? The proposals do appear limited compared to other town areas. We can apply for permits in the town but theses are only valid after 16.30 and on Saturday and Sundays. With young children parking is essential for Monday to Friday. Residents in the smaller houses on Petworth Road seem to have been forgotten over the last decade. We love living in our town and parking availability would help especially with a young family.


It is recommended not to proceed due to the multiple objections from residents of Petworth Road. These residents have not been considered in this scheme but will need to be in order for a permit scheme in Museum Hill to go ahead. As part of the 2018 Waverley Parking Review, this scheme will need to be reconsidered with regards to the inclusion of Petworth Road residents, and also the number of proposed permit bays. The unrestricted space opposite the Museum Hill layby will need to be considered for permit holders as well, to increase the capacity of the advertised scheme, so that allowing Petworth Road residents the opportunity to apply for permits would be more feasible. At this stage, all of these changes are too significant to make without re-advertising the scheme again, which will now need to take place as part of the next parking review.

Please note that several residents have used the same wording to object to this proposal, but these have come from different residents or households.

Drawing No:24055 Bridge Road - HASLEMERE


Objection I object to the lack of parking bays opposite the proposed double yellow lines as this is one of the few roads in the area that has no permit parking. This means that all the commuters that don't want to pay for parking use Bridge


Road and I have nowhere to park as I have no driveway to park in. Even though I have a permit for the surrounding roads I still regularly have to drive around for 15 to 20 mins trying to find a parking space. There are more cars than permitted spaces even without the commuters muscling in. The solution would be to have permitted parking only opposite the double yellow lines.

Objection I am objecting against the red lines being put outside of my house. Due to the fact of being wheelchair bound because of a leg amputation. I need to be able to stop outside of my house to load and unload my wheelchair and other equipment to and from my car. If there are red lines there I will not be able to do that which will cause major problems for me. This is why I applied to have access through the back of my garden, because of this very reason. Which was declined!!

Objection I am absolutely appalled that this is even proposed as this will effect myself and my neighbours tremendously and there have been no issues at all with parking up at this end of Bridge Road and especially our side of the road. We always park considerably. As many of the houses that will be affected are family houses with more than one car and driveways only suitable for one (at a push 2) this will cause alot of trouble. I am a single mother of 2 children and have had several operations affecting my walking/mobility over the last 2 years with more to come and I have become reliant on my family for support and we rely on that space out on our road for them to visit and help with my care. My neighbour is also disabled and relys heavily on those additional spaces and I'm sure they will be writing in also. We have NO issue with parking on OUR side of the road, if anything we use this on an everyday basis compared to the houses opposite who have one car on there drives. There is no need for this to be put in place and I need this additional space or I am isolated as there will be nowhere for family or friends to park within walking distance that isn't chargeable. I would like to know exactly why this has even been thought of as this will have a detrimental effect on myself and my neighbours and I cannot see a reason for It. The road at our end is even wide enough to have cars parked out on the road on both sides and cars still to fit through, even lorries and the services. I beg for this to be removed I cannot stress how much I need the additional space, please look at this again. The houses opposite me all park there car/s comfortably on there drives, it is our side that struggles. I cannot stress enough how our road does NOT need this.

Comment I see the merits of your proposal to introduce double yellow lines for one side of Bridge Road and for the increased measures you propose for surrounding roads. As a resident of Bridge Road who relies on street parking I have two massive concerns about your proposals however. 1. You are aware that there are not enough spaces for the number of permits issued for J permit holders. The additional bays in Tanners Lane are unlikely to alleviate this problem as Tanners Lane and Oaklands residents will use them. The additional use of double yellow lines on Bridge Road and surrounding roads will exacerbate this problem. Recommendation: Make the remaining spaces on Bridge Road for J permit holders.


2. The train station now has double its parking capacity due to the extension of its car park but the £8.90 peak daily cost of parking there still makes is desirable for commuters to first seek off road parking and if that is not available to use the car parks surrounding the station where the daily cost is halved. The daily rate for Tanners Lane, for example, is £4.20 and this car park is usually full up by 8.15am. This means that shoppers to Haslemere are finding it tough to park too. Recommendation: Make the short-term prices for car parks around the station low, but increase the daily rate so that it is more in line with the station parking. For instance, charge £9 for parking over 5 hours.

Comment We live right in the middle of Bridge road and think extending the double yellow lines will help with inconsiderate parking and traffic flow. We do however highly recommended introducing residents parking bays on the opposite side. Residents often struggle to find places to park due to people who work in Haslemere town (eg Waitrose) parking along our road and also from commuters who park there to avoid car park charges. People squeeze into unrealistic parking spots, often blocking our driveway.

Comment There are always residents cars along Bridge Road. I can't believe they will park in a residents car park space down by tanners lane park in order to walk up the road and around the corner, nor will wish to pay for a permit. Therefore will start parking in Fieldway and Oaklands thus pushing the free car parking issue into other people's roads, ultimately meaning those other residents won't be able to park outside their homes. Why is West Street not included in this proposal. The chaos caused here is ridiculous.


It is recommended to proceed as advertised. Loading and unloading can still take place on double yellow lines, as well as picking up and dropping off passengers. Parking on both sides of Bridge Road has been causing traffic flow and access issues for several years now, and is something that has been raised as an issue by Haslemere fire station, which uses this road to travel to and from the station.

Drawing No: 24140 Church Hill, Church Lane, Church Green, High Lane - HASLEMERE


Objection Why not reduce the size of the green outside St Barts church to allow for parking spaces there. Otherwise all you are doing is removing parking capacity without providing alternative capacity.

Objection The area directly in front of St Bartholomew's Church is currently one of the most hazardous spots for driving in Haslemere. I note you are recommending that parking is restricted to max 2 hours from 8am to 6pm Monday to Saturday. However I do not think this will alleviate the repeated congestion and danger of this section of road for drivers. When cars are parked, it is not possible to see what is coming in the other direction so cars often start


driving along the section and then it creates a jam. This is because cars are often behind cars coming in both directions, and it becomes almost impossible to reverse a whole stream of cars, around a bend. I live locally and have personally have seen two accidents on this stretch when cars, often driven by elderly passengers as is our population, are not able to reverse easily and have hit the parked cars. My husband and I have also been subjected to violent verbal abuse from cars when we've become "stuck" in the middle when cars behind us are not easily able, or do not want to reverse back along the narrow stretch of road. I am aware of many other people who have experienced abuse from angry drivers at this section of road and many of these are elderly people who will be very affected by the difficulties in driving this road. I believe the only viable option is to make this stretch of road no parking at any time. Some of the most badly positioned parking is from parents of children at the local school, parking dangerously as they leave their cars in a rush to get to school on time. They park on the bend, blocking the view to oncoming cars and your proposals will still allow them to do this. There is plenty of sufficient parking elsewhere for both the school and church if this section was no parking at all.

Objection Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to object very strongly to the proposed changes to the parking on Tanners Lane. Whilst I welcome a review of policy as the area is becoming dangerous with all day station parking and people also using Church Lane and Tanners Lane as a town centre cut through the proposals will have an even greater detrimental effect on the residents of Church Green Cottages. Whilst the restrictions will stop parking around the Green itself and in front of the church, the main houses affected are not accommodated in any way. We have had friends and relatives cars scraped and wing mirrors damaged but worst of all find it almost impossible as it is to park outside our own houses from morning to night as station parkers avoid paying and take the spots. There is no question we need residents parking and time limitations brought in to stop all day commuter parking as is achieved further down the lane and even the placement of speed bumps down this road to slow down traffic by the hospital/doctors surgery and continuing as the road narrows at Tanners Lane to stop the rabbit run mentality and speeding that is apparent at present. Kind regards

Objection By doing this, more people will be parking outside my house. It’s dangerous due to the amount of commuters parking here and children walking to and from school. It’s used as a shortcut to get through to the town. We can’t park outside our own house most of the time. It’s an accident waiting to happen, although there have been a few bumps already. We need permit parking for our house, and we don’t have a drive way!

Support The proposals for Church Hill/Green are welcome. But, they do not go far enough. The plan shows that the two hour waiting restriction is extended from the top of Tanners Lane right across the lych gate of St Bartholomew's Church to the bend. The second half of this section, although there is no pavement, is technically a footpath. So, the red no waiting at any time restrictions should equally apply over this half section from where the pavement ends (about twenty paces before the lych gate) to the bend on High Lane. Cars frequently park on the "footpath" making


pedestrians walk in the middle of the road. I have written to Cllr Richard Hampson about this. Markings should be made in the tarmac at this point as is the case in Weyhill. I would suggest "Public footpath - no parking except funeral cars".

Support Parking on church lane causes obstructions and a hazard and any new restrictions would be most welcome. Comment Church Green definitely needs protection- the state it has been left in recently is disgraceful.

Where do the residents of church green cottages park with only a 2 hour bay outside the church? The school (st barts) then finds that the commuters will park at the church end of Derby road, taking their drop off space, which is further restricted with the closure of parking on and around the green. Taking away parking in this area will also push commuters into Church Lane and Beech Road (towards the Health Centre and Hospital), where patients need parking in the road for appointments, as there is not enough parking at the hospital, particularly when the breast screening lorry is in place. However, due to the width of the road, restriction of parking is needed around the green- by it just needs to exclude the commuters and keep it to sensible areas.

Comment Thank you for your detailed letter of 22 January. I note that you will analyse comments received regarding the now proposed parking restrictions in Haslemere. I attach a very interesting article, a request published by Surrey Fire and Rescue Service that was in The Herald last week (what a coincidence)? Their needs must be taken seriously by the chairman of your local committee. Church Hill is an example for immediate action to prevent cars parking which are causing a serious obstruction, especially for emergency service vehicles, some of which may be going to the hospital. School time is another situation of children with their comings and goings on Church Hill which causes huge traffic jams. It is no use a member of your committee just making a casual visit to the site or a comment, it needs someone who knowns the area well or lives there to spend time observing the daily problems being caused by commuter cars. A great deal of money has been spent on parking in the area and at the station itself with extra space. I pass Church Hill green several times each day and I live in Church Lane. If I can be of help in anyway do feel free to contact me.

Comment I have seen details of the new proposed parking restrictions round Church Hill in Haslemere. Full clarification is required if parking is to be prohibited on both sides of the through road. At the moment there is utter chaos during the day. No doubt your inspectors reported this is their report following observations. There are never cars parked around the green on any of the sides, the road markings round the green are not correct and need to be investigated, they should be opposite the green. A site visit by your implementation team will fully understand the situation and where parking restrictions should in fact apply and not where they are currently proposed.


It is recommended to proceed as advertised. Permit parking for the Church Green Cottages is something that can be considered as part of a future parking review, if wanted by all of the cottages.


Drawing No: 24101, 24141 The Common – CRANLEIGH AND EWHURST


Objection I write to object to the recommendations made by the council for parking restrictions along the north side of the common in Common Road. I object on the following grounds: SAFETY. Despite repeated requests to SCC for speed restriction measures including a 20mph limit, speed bumps and chicane they have all been turned down on grounds of cost mainly. For residents who have to park their vehicles in the road, there is a significant inherent danger with loading and unloading children, especially if the recommended parking restrictions is continuous on the residents’ side for another 100 yards before the pond. Heavy vehicle use of this road compounds the issue. In the summer there are often in excess of 100 youngsters playing cricket. Children are picked up and dropped off along this section of road. CONSIDERATION FOR THE RESIDENTS. No allowance has been made for residents attempting to exit their drives. With the road being used by HGV’s and commercial vehicles the available carriageway width for such exiting vehicles is significantly narrowed, making the exiting procedure much more dangerous and potentially damaging the verges. My neighbour when possible is parking his vehicle immediately adjacent to his house on the residents’ side of the road. When he does this an instant chicane is created slowing down the traffic and protecting the verge. THE RAPIDLY DETERIORATING ROAD SURFACE. If the council continues to ignore traffic calming measure requests there will be no decrease in speed of the speed of the through traffic. This increases the likelihood of further deterioration in the road surface. There will be no let-up in the constant damage to verge and carriageway. DAMAGE TO THE VERGES. This has been a problem for many years but with increasing traffic and especially heavy vehicles, this damage is in places is becoming irreparable. CONCLUSIONS. I am sure all residents and SCC wish the road to be as safe as possible. The findings of the parking review are therefore unacceptable. I feel at the very least:

1. Permitted parking should be created for 2-3 vehicles adjacent to Tilehurst on the residents’ side of the road. When the road is congested, this simple and cheap measure will create the necessary chicane to limit vehicle speeds, making the road safer and with the added benefit of both slowing the ongoing damage to the road surface and reducing verge damage.

2. There should by DYL painted opposite all the residents drives. The two measures will obviously reduce the amount of available parking, but this will be more than compensated for by a significant improvement in road safety. The latter has to be the logical preferred option. Although not in the remit of this parking review, can I again stress the importance of banning heavy traffic from using this road? I have been in discussion with Andrew Povey, our local County Councillor and Stuart Stennett from Waverley BC and both are in agreement that the road needs bollards at the Guildford Road end of the road to narrow the entrance, thereby preventing use by heavy vehicles.

Objection I wish to object as I do not think that enough consideration has been given to the proposals along the Common to the north side of the cricket ground. The changes have not been given sufficient thought for the safety of the residents.


Objection As a resident of The Common who has to park on the road (outside my property if I'm lucky), I understand the need to control parking but feel the suggestions are too severe in their present form. It does not allow any leeway for extra vehicles taking up resident’s spaces nor for any visitors to our properties. I live in a group of several cottages which don't have off road facilities. I make a proposal that the no waiting zone suggested on the residential side of the common be moved 50 metres further on towards Horseshoe Lane. There is only ever an issue concerning parking here on Friday evenings during the cricket season and Bonfire Night.

Objection Dangerous speed of vehicles on Common Road. Need lower speed limit. Danger to children playing on Common. Pedestrians have to walk in road, which is also badly lit at night. Ban HGVs/large vans/lorries using this road, badly damaging verges and breaking up road surface yet again.. Proposed continuous yellow lines will make traffic even faster We need yellow lines opposite drives to help residents exiting/returning to their drives.

Objection I see you are making it as hard as possible for the public to comment on this, by making a separate form for each separate bit of road. My comments refer generally to no parking in Waverley. People have cars, and they need to park. Many of the problems are caused by poor planning by Waverley, for example not making developers build enough parking spaces for new houses. One space per bedroom should be the norm. For example, in Badgers Cross, Milford, a few years ago you allowed the block of flats there to build a house on its car park. Now there are 12 spaces for 20 flats, so they all park illegally in Badgers Cross. Entirely your fault.

Objection We object because of the resulting speed of cars and difficulty in getting in and out of our drives by your proposals.( North side )We are concerned that cars and lorries use our part of The Common to speed along and if you put down double yellow lines on one side only cars will speed along the houses side the whole way and endanger our Children who cross over to the Common regularly. If there was double yellow lines on alternate sides going down the road it would make the cars slow down in a chicane effect rather than speeding along the house side of the road the whole way. In addition we spoke to the Highways man about having double yellow lines opposite everyones drive as cars parked opposite make it very difficult to turn in and get out of our drives.

Objection Over the last few years, parking on The Common has become a real problem. Most of the vehicles park for the whole day whilst their drivers walk into the village to work. This is a problem which needs addressing as it essentially prevents short term parking by those wishing to enjoy the common or to visit residents. Parking restriction are needed, but careful thought must be given to the exact nature of the problems and to the outcome and effect on residents. Since the recent kerbing of the south side of the road, a huge amount of irreparable damage has been done to the road edge and the grass verges on the north side because of increased traffic, cars, large vans and HGVs, mostly travelling at speeds much too fast for the type of road - what is basically a narrow lane. When a neighbour parks outside his house, x Tilehurst, in order to load or unload his family and baby safely, the speed of traffic is noticeably reduced because a chicane effect has been made. Further to the proposed double yellow lines from the junction with Horseshoe Lane to Cranbrook, they also need to be added to the south side opposite all driveways. One practical point: the road edge on the north side where double yellow lines are proposed is severely damaged; will the road be resurfaced and kerbed so that lines can be painted here? I can only imagine that it could be difficult to paint in potholes and on mud.

Objection As a resident of The Common which will be affected by the proposals I wish to formally object to the planned approach.


The major problem that we face is in entering or leaving our drives, as they are frequently blocked by vehicles inconsiderately parked, even on occasions completely blocking access. A previous solution agreed, but not implemented, was to have double yellow lines opposite each driveway, which would resolve the problem. Further, in the proposed plan double yellow lines would be painted on both sides of the road as far as Jenkins Farm, meaning that residents of five properties would themselves have nowhere to park adjacent to them. Again as previously agreed, the double yellow lines would only extend as far as just past the driveway to Charters, in fact the position of which has already been marked on the kerb. This would have the added benefit on allowing more parking, something I believe the Council prefers. The proposals submitted by the Council does not resolve the problems of traffic persistently eroding the grass verges.

Objection I would like to object to the current proposals to change the parking arrangements outside my house. The proposed changes would prevent me from parking directly outside my home and force me to park on the opposite side of the road. As well as the obvious inconvenience this would cause, when I am forced to park here in order to keep the road clear, it causes no end of stress and worry when trying to get my daughter into and out of the car and it is highly intimidating when drivers are waiting for you to clear the road due to an open car door and also the speed at which some drivers travel along the road. In addition, every time I am forced to park on the opposite side of the road, our verge is damaged by large vehicles which are trying to access local building sites. Parking on the house side of the road prevents this damage from occurring. This amount of damage which has occurred recently is tragic. I hope you will consider these views seriously and amend the current proposals. I expect my husband will have already written with his opinion and believe that our views are also shared with our neighbours.

Objection Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the proposals outlined for the amendment of parking controls along Common Road on the north side of Cranleigh cricket green. As the resident of 2 Tilehurst, in general I welcome the need to amend parking controls in the area around the cricket green, however I believe the current proposals will be detrimental from both a safety and environmental perspective. Residents of Common Road have been part of several discussions as co-ordinated by xxxxxxxxxxxx who I believe has met with officials and chairs the combined opinions of the immediate residents. Living at X Tilehurst, we have had long running concerns regarding the speed of traffic and degradation to the soft verge, immediately adjacent to Tilehurst and parallel houses. Parking of non-residents, using the Lane as free parking to access the village often park carelessly and inconsiderately along the road. Combined with the speed of passing motorists, the soft verge is quickly being eroded and has increased substantially since the construction of the hard concrete verge on the green side of the road. Approaching from the Guildford road, our house XXXXXX is on the left hand side of the road and therefore it is sensible for us park here. We do not have a driveway. As the road only allows exit from the Horseshoe lane end, traffic is predominantly one way and therefore it is also more consistent with expected driving practice that parking along the road should be on the left hand side of the road. Since the construction of the hard concrete verge on the green side of the road, non-residents have developed the practice of


parking on the green side of the road. When the road is busy, we are often forced to park on the green side of the road, meaning we have to cross the road in order to access our house. This creates a problem when loading / unloading our 5 month old baby from the car. Opening the car door onto the road side is dangerous due to the speed and impatience of passing motorists along this road. When unloading from car, particularly during the dark winter months, we are vulnerable and the noise of approaching cars travelling unsympathetically fast along the road is intimidating and frightening. It is not possible to access the baby seat via the green side of the road due to the location and fastening of the child seat in the car and also uneven ground on the cricket green. This is also compounded during bad weather and when the ground is wet. A combined solution to our safety concerns and that which our neighbours have with regards to the degradation of the soft verge adjacent to Tilehurst and parallel houses has been for us to always park on the left hand side of the road when possible. Not only does this allow us to access our vehicle immediately outside our house, but has had the positive benefit of protecting the soft verge as motorists overtake on the right. The hard concrete verge therefore takes the brunt of any poor driving. In addition, although some motorists sensibly park on the same side as us, most have continued to try to park on the right hand side of the road. As it is necessary to leave a gap for the flow of traffic, this reduces the parking immediately opposite neighbours driveways which often prevents them from leaving their homes easily and in some cases, blocking them in completely. I know this is another major concern for residents along the road and I am sure that they will have contacted you specifically about this. As part of the current proposals, I have noticed that yellow lines have been proposed on the right hand side of the road immediately after leaving the Guildford road but yet as the road approaches Tilehurst, the position of these lines swaps sides so that they are positioned on the left hand side, therefore immediately adjacent to our house, where, as I have just discussed, is where we choose to park. I am unsure why residents at one end of the road are therefore being given immediate access to their vehicles but we are being denied it. I would like to add that the position of our parked vehicle when adjacent to our house, on the left hand side of the road, does not cause any negative affect to passing motorists or the general flow of traffics. In fact, the benefits are perhaps in greater than I have outlined; motorists are forced to drive slower which makes the road safer for pedestrians using the road. Problems only arise when non-residents park inconsiderately close on the green side of the road, thereby creating a tight chicane effect which proves challenging for larger vehicles. I know other residents are also campaigning on this front and also fully support their view that large vehicles should be prohibited from using the road. In summary, although parking measures are welcome, I would urge the council to reconsider their current proposals and take into account the concerns of residents living along the road. The re-positioning of yellow lines would have multiple positive benefits. I would ask that yellow lines are drawn along the hard concrete verge immediately opposite Tilehurst, thereby allowing parking on the soft verge side. I have highlighted concerns on safety and environmental grounds. The proposed changes are ill-thought through and would cause multiple profound negative consequences for residents in favour of non-resident motorists, simply trying to evade parking costs in the village. At very least, further consultation and additional site visits should take place to explore these suggestions further.

Support I WISH TO SUPPORT XXXXXXXXXXX SUGGESTIONS TO CREATE A CHICANE EFFECT TO HELP SLOW DOWN SPEEDING CARS AND HOPEFULLY PREVENT THE ENORMOUS ARTICULATED BUILDING LORRIES GRADUALLY ERODING THE GRASS VERGES AND DESTROYING THE ROAD SURFACE ON THE NON-KERBED SIDE.


Comment Please can you extend the parking restrictions onto the section of the High Street between the cricket pavilion roundabout and Stocklund Square roundabout, so that no parking is allowed (or there are bigger gaps between the parking bays)? The reason is that, with so many heavy lorries using the High Street, it is effectively only one lane wide in this section as 2 lorries cannot pass if there are parked cars. I have seen a lorry mount the pavement (common side) and drive along it at speed to get past other lorries going in the opposite direction. This was at school leaving time and there were lots of students about. This is extremely dangerous and the only way to stop this is to make the usable road wider by removing parking here. As the parking is free here it is always full and people manoeuvring in and out of the spaces add to the hold ups, which in turn increases the risk of the dangerous driving I have seen.

Comment Please add double yellow lines either side of the access drive to my house, XXXXXX and Old Tolkein as I am unable to leave my house safely at present. I have no space to turn my car round and must back out onto Common Road where cars are exiting the roundabout at 30+mph. When cars and vans are parked outside my house I am unable to see and have had some very near misses. If cars are to park outside my house then the potholes need filling in. Some of these are very deep indeed and cause damage to vehicles. These potholes need filling as a matter of urgency.


It is recommended not to proceed due to the objections from residents of the Common and a lack of support for what has been proposed.

Drawing No: 24101 St James’s Place – CRANLEIGH AND EWHURST


Objection This location is where I park every day. I paid for my permit and I have parked here ever since. I have 2 very young children and this space has made it easy and safe for me to get them in and out of the car. I live at XXXXXX and can safely see my car out of my window , when I parked along horseshoe lane before I had my permit it was extremely dangerous for me to cross the main road with my children and i also had damage done to my car . I'm unsure as to why you would add a space closer to the hair dressers side and remove the one near the exit of st James's place, these spaces are always used up by people without a paying permit.

Objection Well I completely understand something needs to be done as a lot of people abuse this road for work ECT, maybe do a permit as people who live here do use this as their only location to be able to park. If my location is removed from st James's Place I will need to park here and then move my car every few hours that would be ridiculous as if I was parking on the high street. People that live in this village need to be looked after and not pushed out and a fair parking scheme should be available to residents

Officer It is recommended to proceed as advertised. This proposal is reducing a parking bay to allow for access to


Recommendation and from a reconstructed off street parking area for number 268 High Street, which is being offset by the extended space at the other junction of St James’s Place.

Drawing No: 24103 St Nicholas Avenue – CRANLEIGH AND WEHURST


Objection Extending the yellow lines along St Nichols Ave will have a negative effect to the speed at which motorists pass the School. As it stands with vehicles parked along one side of the road outside the school, this acts as a buffer to the traffic at actually slows traffic down. Painting more yellow lines will actually allow vehicles to continue speeding past the school unhindered. I feel that a 20mph lint outside the school would be far more beneficial.

Objection A primary school needs to supply some parking space. Where on earth will parents from St. Cuthbert Mayne primary school who are forced to drive be able to park?

Objection Essentially echo my previous comments. Our school has no provision for parking at school drop off and collection times. Removing available parking in this road in addition to the Ewhurst Road will exacerbate the parking problem pushing it further afield into the surrounding congested residential roads, encouraging dangerous parking and further infuriating residents.

Objection In order to get to the school it is necessary that I have to drive as I am more than several miles from the school. Even with the current regime it is extremely Parents difficult to find a parking space to drop the children at the school . Rather than instigate a scheme to make the parking even more difficult shouln’t the school or the local authorities be more proactive in assisting those that have to drive and organise a parking scheme.

Support I support this, to make it a safer environment for children entering and leaving school. Support As a home owner on St Nicolas Avenue as well as a parent I fully support any parking restrictions which would make

the safety of the children not only at St Cuthbert Mayne but other pupils crossing the roads travelling at school times a safer journey to school. It scares me the speed and carelessness of some drivers at drop off and collection time and I hope it does not take a fatality for someone to do something about the safety of our community.

Support These proposed restrictions will improve the safety of children at school pick up/drop off coming out of St Cuthbert Mayne primary school -making it easier for both passing cars and pedestrians to see when crossing the road

Support I support parking restrictions outside St Cuthbert Mayne on St Nicholas. As a parent who has great concerns over my son’s safety I think this is a positive move. It is a real risk to park outside the school entrance and I think more restrictions would be welcomed on this road by the majority of parents attending the school.


Support When the schools are arriving and leaving, the area of St Nicholas Avenue is a nightmare, cars parked everywhere, and making it very hard to see the children, especially as their height restricts visibility. I feel by limiting where the cars park in key areas, it would make it safer for the children plus easier and less stressful for passing drivers.

Support I am disabled and a blue badge holder. I currently have two children who attend St. Cuthbert Mayne school with another due to start Sept 2019. I have never park on the double yellow lines, I park in my friends private driveway opposite school as I am unable to walk. But I have seen SO SO many very near accidents by selfish people parking everywhere along St. Nicholas's Avenue and Ewhurst Road, non disabled drivers parking 7 cars down the double yellows to the junction of Ewhurst Road, and many children very nearly hit or killed by these drivers or drivers trying to get past their selfishly parked cars. I am in FULL support of the proposed changes in the hope it makes our roads safer.

Support I can see the advantage of this, but it means a further 5 vehicles being pushed further up the road. Support These proposals would make the school safer due to increased visibility when exiting the school on foot via the

church car park. Support This is long overdue. We need no parking on the Ewhurst road opposite St Nicolas Avenue. The trouble is that

people still park even on double yellow lines. We need regular officers monitoring this. Support Dangerous parking around St Cuthbert Mayne School entrance currently a concern. Support I have been using the road to walk my children to school for the last few years and the number of near misses I have

experienced is quiet scary. It is my opinion that it’s only a matter of time before a child or adult is killed here. Cars continue to just drive to quickly and ignore the zebra crossing even when you are on it!!

Comment There has been no consideration for the residents living further up St Nicolas avenue. Officer


Drawing No: 24103 Ewhurst Road – CRANLEIGH AND EWHURST


Objection I have no option but to do the school drop by car as I live a few miles away (and the school bus is full) - these proposals seem ridiculous. Cars only park along Ewhurst Road for short periods of time of 5-10 minutes during the school run window and the benefit of allowing this parking window certainly outweighs any issues. The proposals would simply encourage cars to drive more aggressively (and create more congestion and unsafe conditions) on St Nicholas Avenue and local residential streets, shifting the cars onto neighbouring residential streets which will aggravate local residents. You are proposing to reduce the parking provision when there is very little parking near the school as it is. If enacted, the consequence of the parking limitations would be to further encourage dangerous parking and driving, exacerbating safety issues for small children and local residents.


Objection I am writing to object to the proposed parking restrictions for Ewhurst Rd in Cranleigh. Although I understand it is not the most ideal place to park, restricting it it is only pushing the traffic onto the smaller residential roads where there are far more pedestrians, children and dog walkers all trying to negotiate the same small lanes. Also very importantly since the restrictions have been in place near St Nicholas Ave the traffic on the main road has now become worryingly faster and has made walking along the pavement a lot more dangerous.

Objection There is very little disruption to traffic by parking in Ewhurst Road. It would be better if efforts were concentrated on the illegal parking in the High Street especially around the Knowle Lane junction. Every week day morning numerous lorries are parked on double yellow lines outside the bakers which makes it impossible to see traffic coming from the right when trying to exit Knowle Lane.

Objection Where will parents from St. Cuthbert Mayne primary school who are forced to drive be able to park? This a primary school with no parking. You need to provide an alternative!

Objection Parking is extremely limited in and around St Cuthbert Mayne School area. The Ewhurst Rd provides 7 or 8 spaces that are relatively safe to park in, within manageable walking distance to the school, unloading children from car to pavement is not 100% safe on any road but I have to park somewhere. Home to school transport is not provided for my children so I do not have a choice other than to drive them to school. Restricting this area just moves the problem slightly further from the school and will severely congest the smaller surrounding roads without restrictions, i.e. St Nichlolas Avenue, New Park Road, Mead Road etc.

Objection I object to this proposal to extend the no parking along Ewhurst Road, close to my children's school. There is no parking or drop off zone for our children at St Cuthbert Mayne School and we are forced to park in the roads nearby and walk. Cars park on the Ewhurst Road for short periods of time 5-10 minutes during the school drop off/collection periods. The neighbouring roads are already congested with car parking and so this will only add to the congestion and further infuriate the residents in those roads, in addition to leading to dangerous parking. Most importantly, I feel with no parking allowed this will only encourage cars to increase their speed along the Ewhurst Road where children and parents use the pedestrian crossing. All to often motorists are going too fast at this point and do not stop to allow you to cross. It is a disaster waiting to happen. Removing the parking will only exacerbate the situation and put our children's safety at further risk.

Objection I strongly object. Parking for St. Cuthbert Mayne School is already very limited. By endorsing the proposal it will virtually wipe out all parking and push cars into neighbouring residential roads which are already fed up with cars parking there. There have been numerous serious near misses at the pelican crossing where drivers have failed to stop and speed through. If there is a clear straight road this will increase creating an extremely dangerous road for school children elderly and others to cross. This will also have an impact on those attending church services, school events and funerals. I suggest a single yellow line with timed restrictions would be a better option.

Objection In order to get to the school it is necessary that I have to drive as I am more than several miles from the school. Even with the current regime it is extremely Parents difficult to find a parking space to drop the children at the school. Rather than instigate a scheme to make the parking even more difficult shouldn’t the school or the local authorities be more proactive in assisting those that have to drive and organise a parking scheme.

Support I support this, to make it a safer environment for children entering and leaving school.

Support There have been multiple near misses at School run time on the zebra crossing and it is chaotic with cars parked up on kerbs and double yellows etc reducing visibility. I strongly support this proposal.


Support The parked cars on Ewhurst Rd, opposite St Nicolas Ave, obscure driver's view of the zebra crossing -which is a contributing factor in why there have been many reported 'near misses' at the crossing, where drivers have failed to stop when parents/children are midway across. I therefore support the proposed parking restrictions here. Restrictions opposite New park Rd, is also a good thing as parked cars there force moving cars on Ewhurst Rd (from Cranleigh direction) into the middle of the road which is dangerous when you are turning out of New Park Rd.

Support The area opposite New Park Road is really hard to drive safely by when the schools are arriving and leaving. The cars are on the wrong side of the road to avoid the parked cars opposite the road's junction and it is hard to see the zebra crossing pavement where children are waiting to cross. I feel that restricting the area of parking would make it safer for both the children, parents and passing drivers.

Support I fully support the councils proposals regarding traffic restrictions both on Ewhurst road and St Nicholas Avenue. I have had young children at St Cuthbert Mayne school for many years and have witnessed several near misses both at the zebra crossing from impatient drivers and cars clipping the curb at the corner of New Park Road Ewhurst roads. The latter due to cars squeezing past the parked cars opposite New Park Road.

Support This is a very busy section of the road, particularly at school drop off and pick up times. These new parking restrictions will vastly improve the safety aspects of families walking to and from school.

Support The parked traffic definitely compounds the problem of the crossing. Drivers cannot see far enough ahead and attention is taken up with negotiating the busy road. Pedestrians cannot see past the parked cars for oncoming traffic. Preventing parked cars here will remove all excuse for unsafe use of the road. Any further near misses will be due to people driving with undue care and attention.

Support Strong support of these proposals, turning out of New Park Road is dangerous with cars parked opposite and also using the existing pedestrian crossing is dangerous when cars are parked all along the Ewhurst Road due to reduced visibility both for ongoing cars and pedestrians.

Support Hi we live along Ewhurst Rd and are affected daily by the School traffic are children used to go to Cuthbert Mayne School so we understand dropping your kids off is very important. However the disregard of some parents and there inability to park a car properly astounds us daily. So we fully support the changes. About time.

Support Zebra crossing on Ewhurst Road near St Nicolas Avenue currently dangerous. I regularly cross with young children and cars often do not stop. Parking changes should help this.

Support The cars being parked on the area of the road opposite St Nicolas's Avenue and the White Hart pub, put children at risk during school pick up and drop off. The Zebra crossing is not adhered to by many drivers. On numerous occasions I have seen or been involved in near miss accidents when a car has driven straight through this crossing, whist people and children have been crossing the road. The parked cars on the Southern side of the road cause traffic to speed up coming from Cranleigh in order to get passed as the road has been narrowed to single file traffic. This then means they are accelerating towards the zebra crossing.

Support I fear for the lives of my children on this stretch of road, I have experienced some near misses. Please, please put in traffic calming or traffic lights at the Zebra crossing. Only Today myself and another Mum were on the crossing when a car drove straight over the crossing while we were on it!

Comment I think it would be really helpful if the zig zag lines were extended either side of the zebra crossing. There have been many sightings of cars approaching and not stopping at the zebra crossing so I feel strongly that something has to happen to guard


the safety of all the children attending St Cuthbert Mayne. I don’t think the parking restrictions need to go as far down the road. Parking to drop and collect my child off at school is already very limited. I would like to see the area directly around the crossing improved but consideration to not remove all parking on this road.

Comment I agree with all of the proposed markings WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE STRETCH OF ROAD BETWEEN NEW PARK ROAD JUNCTION ON THE EWHURST ROAD AND THE BUS STOP on the LHS Heading towards park mead. Although the proposed markings will make the crossing safer they will limit an already limited option for parking at school times and thereby put more congestion / pressure on New Park Road, Bridge Road and St Nicolas Avenue.

Comment I propose that a reduction in the speed limit during the ‘School run’ is far more beneficial than painting more yellow lines. Having nearly been a victim of a speeding motorist who failed to stop for me with my two daughters using the zebra crossing close to St Nicholas Ave, The crossing itself is not obscured in any way, it’s purely a matter of motorists need to slow down and a speed limit of 20mph would be far more beneficial.

Comment I fully support increased parking restrictions around the school entrance on St Nicolas Avenue, and on the Ewhurst Road opposite the entrance to St Nicolas Avenue. I do not however support additional restrictions around the north side of the Ewhurst Road. Parking in the location does not seem dangerous to school children and never appears to distrust the traffic in any significant way. Indeed, without the parked cars, I would imagine that the traffic may flow faster than it currently does. Parking restrictions on this stretch of road significantly reduce the availability of parking for parents and it will just ‘move on’ the problems to a different location. Neighbouring residential roads will become more busy and dangerous. Can this scheme be split to allow for more restriction directly around the school but no additional restriction further away? This is a parish school so many families do not live in Cranleigh and therefore have to drive. In reality, these families do need somewhere to park.


It is recommended to proceed as advertised. Pick up and drop offs can still take place on double yellow lines.

Drawing No: 24104 Overford Drive and Little Manor Gardens – CRANLEIGH AND EWHURST


Objection I am pleased some positive action is being taken. By implementing the parking restrictions proposed you will simply push the parking issues further down Overford Drive. these changes will not address the issue that occurs the entire way down Overford Drive. Every working day between 8am-5pm the road is overrun with people parking rather than parking in the village for work due to the high prices in the car parks. When the weekend and evening comes around all these cars are gone. These people park very inconsiderately (often blocking drives) making it difficult for us to use our own road and driveways, and dangerously (on corners and in junctions obstructing everyone's view, and in places marked no parking already). Particular


offenders include M&S who actually recommend their employees park down my road. by imposing these restrictions they will continue to park all throughout Overford Drive, the proposed restrictions do not go far enough in my view. The ideal, and safest, solution for residents would be to make the road residents only parking. Those who do not live here park inconsiderately, and often rude when residents ask them to move or park more considerately.

Objection I live on Overford Drive and we’re seeing more and more workers and shoppers parking on this road. If you add parking restrictions at the top of this road all the people who usually park here will just move further down the road causing more havoc for us residents who live here. More then often it is people who work in Cranleigh who park on this road. They leave there car all day in the most inconvenient spots blocking drives and parking on double white lines. I strongly disagree that adding the suggested parking restrictions will help congestion on this road. It will only add to the problem.

Objection I work in Cranleigh and it’s been brought to the attention of myself and my fellow work colleagues that there are plans to paint double yellow lines in Overford Drive and possibly other nearby roads. As someone who works full time hours in the retail sector on national minimum wage the prospect of having to rely on a public car park would be financially crippling to say the very least. The prospect of this would jeopardise my current employment and mean having to look for another job! I know a number of my colleagues work irregular shifts and find parking just as much an issue as I do, would it not be charitable to say open up Snoxhall car park for people who work in Cranleigh, even if this were a permit at a much reduced rate? I’m sure there are a lot of people in a similar situation that this would greatly affect, not only where I work but in other establishments also. I understand that the residents probably aren't too keen on us using the road, it’s not like we're blocking drives or access! If we didn't work in the retail establishments the Cranleigh residents would have nowhere to shop! then what?

Objection I work in Cranleigh and often park in Overford Drive as do many of my colleagues . It is ridiculous to impose more parking restrictions in Cranleigh. The Council build more and more houses and do nothing to improve the the parking already available within the town. I don't earn enough to have to pay the extortionate pay & display fees. Cranleigh is a lovely town but it is really beginning to lose its appeal. Working in the town, I meet a lot of locals & business owners, all of whom are fed up with the changes taking place within the town. I've heard people say that the newcomers from the new builds in the area, don't bother coming into Cranleigh, because the parking is so dire. Do you really want to drive more people away from the town? Enough of this madness. Get your act together and stop being so greedy! My grounds for objecting are the lack of available car parking spaces which would force me to use the pay & display car parks which I cannot afford.

Support The restrictions should extend from Horsham rd to the junction of Charts Close and Overford Drive. People park vehicles right up to the bend and visibility is no existent when exiting Charts Close. My family and I have had numerous near misses both as pedestrians and when on bicycles or in a car. It is used for parking by people trying to avoid the charges of the local car parking facilities and it is getting worse every year. It is dangerous, not just inconvenient for residents who are struggling to exit their properties.

Support Restricted parking here would be much safer BUT these cars will just park elsewhere nearby e.g.


1. Further back along OD. Cars are already parked virtually the length of Overford Drive during the day and now occasionally actually on the bend between Charts Close and Hitherwood, obstructing view of oncoming traffic. Dangerous 2. Around the corner at the Horsham Road/Hitherwood junction. I had always considered this situation an accident waiting to happen and last week it almost did. Approaching the exit from Hitherwood I (A) had to commit to overtaking a line of 4 cars parked end to end just before the junction. A car (B), previously not visible, approaching from the village, subsequently turned into Hitherwood from Horsham Road and was able to stop in the small space available in his lane, allowing me to continue to the end. However, a second car following C was then left stranded across the Horsham Road. Dangerous and perhaps with a less lucky outcome next time. I shall be using the exit from Ashtrees in future (until that too becomes congested)

Support I welcome the intention of continuing double yellow lines down Overford Drive to Little Manor Gardens. However as a resident of Charts Close, I would appreciate further continuation of these double yellow lines as far as the entrance to Charts Close. I suggest this would then successfully stop the proliferation of parked cars (bumper to bumper every day without fail) blocking the sightline when trying to exit Charts Close, and reducing the road width to a single lane, from our Close to the junction with the Horsham Road. This length of Overford Drive up to Charts close then curves to the left, therefore oncoming traffic approaches the reduced road width unaware of traffic turning swftly into Overford from the Horsham Road. One or the other vehicle then has to reverse back in order to give way, preventing a potential collision at the Charts Close junction in addition to the junction with Little Manor Gardens. Thank you for your consideration of this suggestion.

Comment I understand from a resident of Overford Drive that according to notices affixed to lamp columns in Overford Drive you propose to continue existing yellow lines to Little Manor Gardens. While I agree with her comments on the whole, I wish to point out the strong probability that those at present parking in Overford Drive will simply move around the corner into Charts Close and add to the number of vehicles already parking in Charts Close. I understand that we cannot copy Little Manor Gardens in putting up notices saying ‘Residents Only Parking’, although this would seem to be the most sensible option. I would also point out that Charts Close is on the whole occupied by older residents who are not all accustomed to using the web, and that it would be better to offer e-mail and telephone alternatives as a way of contacting you.

Comment Whilst I fully support the introduction of a parking ban at the Little Manor Gardens junction with Overford Drive , I can see no reason to ban it between that junction and the Horsham Road. This will only lead to cars parking further up Overford Drive and in Charts Close, Overford Close and on Hitherwood.

Comment I would like to comment that the proposal does not go far enough, as a resident we see the problem on a daily basis and I feel that it would be preferable for the double yellow lines to extend down as far as Charts Close. Between Little Manor Gardens and Charts Close there is a bend in the road forcing traffic approaching the Horsham Road to be on the wrong side of the road around a bend. If they find a car coming towards them, this car often mounts the pavement to get past. It just needs there to be a pedestrian around the bend and there will be a fatality. Cars park at the junction of Charts Close making it impossible for cars coming out of Charts Close to see into Overford Drive. Not helped by previous road works not re-instating the white lines properly at the junction and cars being parked over white lines around the junction.

Comment Whilst we support your proposed action, please would you consider extending the lines to Charts Close. This stretch of road is made very dangerous by the parked cars and the bend which makes your view obscured. Cars often drive with two wheels on the pavement rather than reverse because of an oncoming car. Last week, I had to pull in to the left to see if the road ahead was clear only to have a car overtake me in his hurry - nearly an accident. Also, as the white hatching does not go into Charts


Close many cars park right on the corner. As many children walk along this road to school, it has become rather dangerous for them with all the parked and reversing cars.

Comment Proposed parking restrictions up to Little Manor Gardens, need to be extended beyond Charts Close . Site line is dangerously restricted, by parked vehicles in Overford Drive, when exiting Charts Close, whether turning left or right.

Comment The proposed double yellow lines should not stop at Little Manor Gardens but go on further along Overford Drive , to Charts Close.Trying to drive out of Ch Close to turn left is very hazardous as there is no sight line for on coming traffic . Equally, turning right from Charts Close, there is no sight line until you are right on the Road. The parking situation in the entire area of Overford Drive, is very dangerous, with every possible space occupied, making it a single file Road, so meeting traffic , results in unavoidably going on the pavement.



Drawing No: 24106 Park Mead Bridge, Park Drive – CRANLEIGH AND EWHURST


Objection I was pleased to see that a couple of years ago you finally got round to sorting out what used to be a dangerous entrance to the estate. I am happy with this. I see that you are now proposing further parking restrictions on the bridge that leads to Park Drive. I don’t agree and wish to object to any extension of the ‘lines’. Parking on the estate is causing problems and any loss of space will make it even more difficult. If drivers are not happy about using the bridge then Wanborough Lane is a lot safer to and from the Ewhurst Road, and they can also use The Ridgeway which now has very nice tarmac for most of its length.

Objection These parking restrictions will lead to many residents with nowhere to put the car within a 1 mile potential radius. There has been no moves by the council or local government to install parking areas elsewhere!

Objection The parking on the road is currently essential for the residents or Hailey place and surrounding buildings. With my partner currently pregnant, this is the closest we can park to our building if Hailey place is full as one of our cars takes up our garage. Unless the council is able to speak to our managing agent to come to some agreement on improving the parking around our building, this must not happen.

Objection I am currently living in Hailey Place and struggle to park most evenings. There are very little places to park and with a baby on the way, I park on the bridge to ensure I am as close as possible. I am 30 houses down on the 2nd floor and therefore this is still quite a walk. If I have heavy shopping and when the baby arrives, it is going to be a real struggle to carry the baby and shopping items if I have to park even further away. Please can you take this into consideration as this is going to have a huge effect to my daily routine! Many thanks,

Objection This is regarding putting new double yellow lines on the bridge at park mead. There is often no parking available for the residents of Hailey Place, and putting double yellow lines on the bridge with further increase this issue and may result in people


parking in other dangerous places. Many residents have families with small children and therefore cannot be parking miles away as this would make daily life very challenging. No alternative parking is being proposed and therefore this would result in approximately 10 cars needing to park else where

Support I fully support the decision to put double yellow lines on the east side of the bridge at the entrance to Park Mead and, it should have been done years ago! Every morning & afternoon at 'school run' time there is a major traffic problem with cars trying to squeeze past the parked cars on the bridge. Trying to exit from Hailey Place is almost impossible at these times and it is a miracle that there has not been a major accident or a pedestrian knocked down and injured. In order for these double yellow lines to work, we must have a traffic warden or PCSO come and give out tickets to people flouting the law by parking on the double yellow lines overnight and especially at weekends.

Support Absolutely in favour of double yellow lines on both sides of the bridge into Parkmead estate. The current situation with parking on one side creates a bottleneck especially with the volume of cars at School pick up/drop off. I have waited 8 minutes (I timed it) to be able to leave Hailey Place after an impass was created. Cars backed up on the Ewhurst Road and in the estate. Utterly ridiculous situation as it stands.

Support I am full support of imposing no parking/waiting at any time on the footbridge along Park Drive as it causes an problems with trying to enter and egress from both Ewhurst Road and from Hailey Place onto Park Drive.

Support I wonder whether you would consider installing a zebra crossing or some such, on Park Drive between Ewhurst Road and Park Mead Primary School? There isn't currently an obviously safe place to cross that road to get to school and a great many pupils and parents walk that way, having just crossed the Ewhurst Road at the traffic lights, or living on the Park Mead estate. It would be very reassuring to have a designated place to cross, instead of people just dashing across quickly when there is a gap between cars. Not a great example for the children. Thanks again for prioritising the safety of pedestrians.


It is recommended to proceed as advertised. Parking on this bridge has been complained about countless times to the parking team over the past several years.

Drawing No: 24147 Park Drive j/w Fettes Road – CRANLEIGH AND EWHURST


Objection I am writing to object to the extension of 'school-keep clear' markings in Fettes Road, which appear on the plan to come to the edge of my driveway. The addition of no parking at any time on the corner of Fettes Road and Park Drive is sufficient to counter any dangerous or anti-social parking around school drop off and pick up times in this area. Fettes Road is a very narrow road with limited car parking options. Parents with children at Park Mead School (where my children also attend) should be encouraged by the school to walk or cycle, not to drive; but measures to encourage this should not penalise residents in Fettes Road, who should have the option to park outside their properties unrestricted. Please consider tackling the issue directly by liaising with the school and parents to encourage better driving and parking practices.

Support Great idea, thank you.




Drawing No: 24115 Station Road j/w Barton Road and Eastwood Road, Bramley - WAVERLEY EASTERN VILLAGES


Support I am delighted that the parking restrictions at this junction will be extended as it is an extremely difficult junction to negotiate entering and exiting at this point when there is inconsiderate parking of cars and vans at this point. There is also planning permission for extension to Snowy House, Barton Road and the presence of builders vans, equipment etc will make the negotiating of this junction intolerable should the building work go ahead.



Drawing No: 24134 Barnett Lane j/w The Street, Wonersh – WAVERLEY EASTERN VILLAGES


Support I use this junction regularly and parking on that corner makes it very difficult to turn into Barnett Lane from Cranleigh direction. Because of the parking the road is just one car width wide and if there is a vehicle coming down barnett lane towards the junction you can’t see it until you have crossed the middle of the road and then there is nowhere to go and are dangerously stuck on the main road. This problem has grown as the Grantley Arms has become more popular as a lot of the parked cars are pub customers. The chairman who blocked the offer of double yellow lines clearly doesn't know the area at all. I would be very interested to know the reasons for his action.

Support I write in support of the SCC proposal to restrict the parking of vehicles at the junction of The Street/ Cranleigh Road and Barnett Lane and have a suggestion to further improve public safety very close to this junction. This proposal presumably addresses illegal and dangerous parking sometimes including vehicles parked obstructing the footpath. But the red line shown on the plan drawing appears to not extend sufficiently to include the narrowest pinch point in Barnett Lane, which is only a few car lengths further along. As a result of this I’ve spoken to SCC Parking Dept (Mr Roberts) who has proposed this restriction, and I have suggested the restriction is extended. The pinch point being at the start of the Protection Barrier currently fixed to the wall of Dower House on the opposite side of the road to prevent further damage to the boundary


wall. Mr Roberts has realised the problem. My suggestion to improve public safety is therefore to extend the restriction at least to the narrowest point so that access is more likely to be unobstructed. Also I understand from a resident of the nearby Woodyers Close, that on occasions the bus driver has to get out of the bus and fold in the wing mirrors of parked vehicles and the bus so they can drive through. It would seen illogical not to extend the restriction at least to this narrow point.

Support I support the proposal. Recently parking at the location has made it particularly difficult for vehicles coming from the direction of Cranleigh to turn right into Barnett Lane.

Support I was amazed that Wonersh Parish Council turned down the offer of double yellow lines at this junction. It is very dangerous here and drivers turning into Barnet Lane from the village direction have their vision blocked by cars parked inconsiderately. Parking restrictions should apply in this location.

Comment This is not an objection to the plans on Barnett Lane but a request for further investigation in to parking in Wonersh. Cars are constantly parked on Wonersh Common Road due to visiting The Grantley Arms and on several occasions each week we face difficulties either exiting or entering our drive because of how drivers have parked their cars. Also, due to speeding traffic, when reversing from the drive through the very narrow space left because of the parking, there have been several occasions where it has proved dangerous. The visibility is significantly reduced in both directions which is a danger to both us and other drivers. The constant parking along the road, every day of the week, has impacted on the look of the village as well as the general environment and reduced access points for crossing the road safely. Drivers do not take notice of the drop curb or the bollard in the verge. Clearer road markings are needed to ensure we can safely exit and enter our house.


It is recommended not to proceed. The request for restrictions on this junction to be considered was initially made by the parish council. However, they have since voted that they do not wish for restrictions to be installed here, and in respect to this, it is recommended not to proceed with this proposal.

Drawing No: 24043 Crossways, Churt – WAVERLEY WESTERN VILLAGES


Objection I object to the proposal to make the parking outside of the shops 1hr only. From a business point of view this is not long enough especially if you are visiting the school to help or the indian restaurant for a meal. I also object from a personal point of view. I live in the flat above my shop and the only place I have to park my car is in the spaces at the front of my shop. If they are limited to a time where am I supposed to park my vehicle?

Objection I own the XXXXXXXXXX Restaurant on Crossways, the parking outside is frequently used by my customers to park their cars while they come inside for a meal. If the parking is changed to 1 hour with no return, my business will be negatively affected as the majority of customers will need a minimum of 2 hours.

Objection JMM Marketing is a mail order company at Oak House. We have daily collections by Parcelforce and Tuffnells and there is no other appropriate parking nearby. We have intermittent deliveries throughout the week including pallets. The vans are parked


for a minutes each time.

Support This is an excellent proposal, as the Honda Garage parks cars in the layby opposite, outside this house and the shops, normally all day. This prevents cars of the public being able to park for the shops. This proposal will assist the local shops, as they need all the assistance they can get. I strongly support this proposal.

Support As a local resident and parent of children attending the local school and nursery, I welcome these proposals. Stopping parking at these points and restricting parking times so as to benefit the local shops and community makes perfect sense. Drivers rarely slow down when travelling through this section of the village and people parked on either side of Crossways makes line of sight and crossing the road with small children very dangerous at times, especially at school drop off and pick up. This may help with visibility and with reducing congestion around the school, pub and shops so it is safer for everyone.

Comment I wish to comment on the above proposals. Hale House Lane (north side). The entrance to the lane is fairly wide and sufficient for two vehicles to pass each other even when cars are parked in front of the house. There is sufficient visibility over parked vehicles on the proposed restricted area from Crossways north to see any movements in the entrance to the lane. Moreover restricting parking there will simply result in vehicles being parked further up the lane where it starts to narrow. Hale House Lane (south side) Vehicles rarely if ever park here. Formal restrictions are not necessary. Churt Road (east side) With the exception of the Brewers dray serving the Crossways pub, vehicles do not stop here probably because it would be more convenient to use the pub parking for any short term use. The dray does make difficulties for through traffic but visibility and traffic density is such that it is acceptable. Again formal restrictions are not needed. Provision should be made for the dray to load and unload since without this exemption the pub will be without beer! Churt Road (west side) No traffic parks here let alone stops deliberately and formal restrictions unnecessary. Crossways (west side) No vehicles park on this stretch. Occasionally one will stop usually for the driver to go to the shop or the garage. It is unrealistic to assume that this habit will disappear if yellow lines are shown and in any case yellow markings may cause drivers to assume the road is clear when this is not the case. The volume of traffic is such that drivers voluntarily avoid stopping without the need to make the rule compulsory. Crossways (east side) Not needed. Crossways (east side) The limited waiting restriction here will be welcomed by many visiting the village and shops. From my experience traffic using the A287 are rarely if ever delayed by parked vehicles and the main reason for hold ups are cars manoeuvring into parking spaces or traffic waiting to turn into side roads. For traffic using Barford Lane and Hale House Lane there are frequent delays due to parked cars through these are usually short lived with a tailback of about three vehicles. The remedy is prohibiting parking in these two roads through this is impractical if for no other reason than moving the problem elsewhere. I have not researched accidents at the Crossways. So far as I’m aware there have been few if any, and it is very unlikely that the proposed parking restrictions will make any difference to this. In conclusion, the proposed signage is likely to have minimal, if any, effect on traffic passing through the village. A more likely consequence is disregarding the rules by a few drivers. The additional yellow lines will add to the plethora of colours and signs that detract from the rural village atmosphere that many in Churt wish to retain. The proposals with the exception of the ‘one hour parking spaces’ as they are set out in the review should be abandoned in so far as they relate to Churt.


It is recommended to proceed as advertised. Churt Parish Council requested a one hour limited waiting period for the village, which is understood to be strongly supported amongst the wider community and


believed to be the best time period to be introduced in Crossways.

Drawing No: 24045 London Road, Hindhead – WAVERLEY WESTERN VILLAGES


Objection While timed bays may be good, it would be better to offer residents permits to use these bays. Parking is already incredibly limited in the area and offering permits, at a cost, to locals, could be more beneficial to the council then timed parking.

Support I completely support this plan. Having lived here for 4 years and having taken my life in my hands each time I wish to drive onto the London Road from my driveway. The yellow lines will help incredibly. There have been no sight lines due to constantly parked cars, the traffic gridlocks will go away, the dangerous situation which occurs every day will be completely alleviated. I will now be able to get out of my driveway with our having to do sometimes up to an 8 point turn and hold up all the traffic due to parking opposite my house taking up more than half the carriageway. There have been several occasions when I have actually been unable to leave my home. My neighbours who have a much larger car have been stuck in the middle of the road with abuse being shouted at them from other motorists, not being able to move.

Support This is the best news we have had for some time, regarding our local environment. We fully support the parking restrictions. We do hope that you will enforce them, both during the working week and also at the weekend, when we can be overwhelmed by cars unwilling to pay to park in the National Trust car park. Delivery trucks to Barons often park on the pavement and both they and other vehicles are damaging the pavement and verges.

Support Having lived in London Road for over four years and been very nervous every time I drove out of my driveway with parked cars on both sides obscuring my view, I am very relieved that at last double yellow lines will be put on the road to stop parking. On occasions the road has been completely blocked and I have been unable to move the car. The road has also been used for overnight parking for heavy goods vehicles. I am exceptionally grateful but feel this should have been done some time ago.

Support I support the provision of the double yellow lines proposed for London Road Hindhead. However, I do not support the restriction of a limit of two hours during the week, including Saturdays. These spaces are used as longer term parking by residents of the local area, and this restriction will put pressure on the limited parking facilities in the immediate area. In addition, the pavements need to be protected from parking by a number of cars. These are often parked dangerously and restrict sightlines. Without enforcement and other protections, the parking restrictions will only lead to a worsening of the situation in the area.




Drawing No: 24137, 24144 Tower Road, Hindhead – WAVERLEY WESTERN VILLAGES


Comment We live at the A333 end of Tower Road and have only just seen your notices attached to lamp posts at the further end of the road as we do not often go up that way. No notices were attached to lamp posts at this end and we did not receive a letter informing us of the project. However, your new proposed parking restrictions will adversely affect this end of the road and are of great concern to us. Our house is XX. From our garage at the far end of the property we have an entry onto Tower Road. The double yellow lines (shown on your plan) stop just before the garage. There is unrestricted parking all the way down in front of XX which is used to its fullest extent during the week by people associated with Stepping Stones School. At weekends it is still in constant use. This often makes it difficult to load or unload the car near the front of the house. During the week cars park right close up to the entrance of our garage, often making it very hazardous to get out. The sight lines to the right are usually blocked off by ever larger parked vehicles. Although Tower Road is a residential area it is used as a slip road for people travelling between the A333 and the A287, sometimes at speed, which further adds to difficulties in getting out not just for us but for people turning out of Moorlands Close. There is the added hazard of cars turning in and out of Glenville Gardens which is within 15 metres of this entrance. I consider that with these further parking restrictions this small section of road will become even more in demand for parking and request that you reconsider this application and that yellow lines be extended beyond our garage to allow a better view on exiting to the right towards A333.



Drawing No: 24144 Tower Road j/w Tilford Road, Hindhead – WAVERLEY WESTERN VILLAGES


Comment I support the proposal to add double yellow lines to the end of Tower Road. However, I would like to see the lines extended further up Tower Road to cover my own address. For the past 4 years we have had a major building project on the corner of Tower Road (Broom Heights). We have suffered contractors' vehicles parking very close to the exit from my driveway, sometimes making it impossible to get onto Tower Road. The situation will not improve once the building work at Broom Heights has been completed because there have not been enough car parking spaces provided at the new development. (This has been the subject of objections raised with Waverley during the building project).


I therefore feel it would be prudent to extend the double yellow lines on both sides of the road to include my own property to prevent this dangerous parking situation from continuing.


It is recommended to proceed as advertised. Additional double yellow lines will need to be considered as part of a future parking review.

Drawing No: 24078 Queen Street – GODALMING NORTH


Support Needless to say, I fully support this proposal, even if it is limited to sharing these spaces with people who for some reason feel the need to park there for one hour rather than use the car park 10 metres away... Thank you for addressing this.

Support I give my support for the setting of resident parking spaces in Queen Street.



Drawing No: 24084 Chalk Road – GODALMING NORTH


Objection This is an expanded version of my online response to the proposed changes to parking restrictions on Chalk Road. By way of background the ten houses fronting on to Chalk Road are all family homes with 3 or more bedrooms. It would have been sensible to seek the opinion of residents and observe the traffic flow before parking proposals were formulated. Parking problems only occur in the morning and evening. There are two very different reasons for the morning and evening problems. In the morning the problem is the volume of traffic exiting on Meadrow and Bridge Road. In the evening the issue is traffic congestion with cars travelling in both directions when parked cars become part of the difficulty. Any new restrictions should be targeted and limited to 2 hours in the evening. There is no need for more double yellow lines. Many years of observation of motorist behaviour indicates that creating a passing place would not alleviate traffic flow difficulties. Road users hardly ever give way here, they just keep coming and would overfill any passing place created. A very serious consideration is that there are times when it could be dangerous to life. Double yellow lines would newly impact the quality of life for such residents. I agree the primary intention should be provide parking primarily for residents including occasional visitors, trades and deliveries. Cars are already being abandoned or parked very long term by non-residents.


Parking could also be targeted according to the number of off road spaces.

Objection SCC are proposing to remove the ‘restricted parking’ box outside No’s 18 to 28 and replace it with double yellow ‘no waiting’ restriction outside No’s 14 to 24. We are vehemently opposed to this proposal as it is a gross over reaction to a minor traffic congestion problem which will severely affect the family’s quality of life. The main problem occurs in the morning rush hour when east bound traffic disgorges from Chalk Road onto the roundabout at the junction with Meadrow and Bridge Road. Due to the traffic island SCC installed the rush hour traffic sometimes backs up some two hundred yards to the houses in question. In the evening rush hour there is a weight of traffic both east and west bound which occasionally causes hold ups because of the impatience of some drivers. Traffic flow is also impeded because of the narrow railway bridge, which causes west bound traffic to back up. This problem is exacerbated by the aggressive impatience of some east bound drivers. We also suffer from non-residents who park whilst commuting to Godalming town centre and further afield. This proposal is very much resented by the residents of Chalk Road who feel they are being victimised. There is no other public car parking available within several hundred yards of these houses. All surrounding roads have double yellow lines. Where are they supposed to park? The imposition of the double yellow line will lead to friction amongst neighbours as they are forced to park in front of other peoples’ garages or off road space. Elderly residents will suffer, and their visiting family and friends will have nowhere to park. Like other residents of Chalk Road they are very concerned as to whether trades people will wish to carry out maintenance work, installations etc…if they cannot park close by. The rationale presented by SCC is disingenuous and suggests they have not studied what is actually happening on the ground. The proposed double yellow lines will take out three of these spaces with no additional parking space created because the remaining space is in front of drop kerbs. A disaster for the residents. Possible ways of ameliorating the problem are

1. SCC to improve the junction at the eastern end of Chalk Road to improve traffic flow and stop the back up in the morning rush hour.

2. Introduce signage giving priority to westbound traffic under the railway bridge. 3. Extend the area free from double yellow lines to east of houses No.10 so as to provide more on-road parking. 4. Introduce a single yellow line outside houses 18 to 28 with a restriction of No Waiting 8am to 9am and 4.30pm to

5.30pm Monday to Friday.

Objection Proposal to remove the parking restrictions completely "to allow residents to park legally all day" is not workable. This action will inevitably attract and allow non - residents to park to go into town/station etc. (as some already do) giving no priority to residents - thereby encouraging unhelpful competition from residents and non - residents for limited parking spaces. This is not acceptable. Where parking has been deregulated on nearby Borough Road - vehicles are parked for considerable lengths of time without moving. As a resident, I observe that the flow of two-way traffic is only affected weekdays, 8 a.m - 9 a.m and 4:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. It is not a problem outside of these times; at weekends and holidays as the traffic is considerably lighter. I therefore strongly object to the unnecessary suggestion of double yellow lines outside numbers 14-24 to allow a “passing


space” as this will deny and penalise these residents from being able to park outside their frontage at any time- even when traffic flow is unaffected. Rather than a double yellow line to allow a "passing space" I suggest that a single yellow line with parking restrictions (Monday - Friday 8-9 a.m. and 4:30 - 6:30 p.m. ) either end of the current box arrangement together with signage to allow westbound traffic to have priority under the bridge would work for the benefit of both motorists and residents.

Objection This is an abbreviated version of my full response submitted by letter. The main points are an incomplete understanding of current traffic movements, a better targeted response and quality of life. Traffic flow problems occur only at the start and end of a working day (8.00 to 9.00 and 4.30 to 6.30) for different reasons. Traffic flows without difficulty at all other times. The morning issue is solely the volume of traffic exiting to Meadrow and Bridge Road. Parked cars are irrelevant. Any new parking restrictions should be limited to 2 hours in the evening. Detailed observation over many years indicates a passing place would not resolve traffic flow difficulties. Hardly anyone gives way cars keep coming and would regularly overfill any passing place. More effective would be to reduce the bay length overall with all parking towards the centre of the current bay. Chalk Road houses are all 3 plus bedroom family homes with many long-term residents (3 over 30 years). At times it could be dangerous to life if residents were not able to stop outside their houses (young children, old or disabled residents) and unnecessary double yellow lines would impact upon the quality of life of such residents. Parking should be targeted according to off-road spaces. Houses with only one off-road space are 16,18, 20 and 24. In practice 14, 18, 20, 24 and 26 regularly park cars on the road. Removing parking at both ends of the current bay would have less impact because 10, 12, 24 and 26 have more than one off road space.

Objection I object to this proposal as it stands. Heavy traffic occurs on Chalk Road at only two limited periods (morning and evening rush hours) and at other times is far lighter. In the morning, the hold-up is caused by Bridge Road roundabout and not by parked cars. In the evening, the heavier flow is in the direction towards the railway bridge and may be alleviated by Permit-only parking restricted outside the busy evening period. Furthermore, the proposal may dangerously increase the speed of traffic towards the railway bridge and vulnerable pedestrians. Therefore, the grounds for this objection are that it is unnecessary and possibly dangerous in its current form.

Objection This proposal effectively gives them free parking at the expense of local people. If they want to park here then there should be only a few assigned/marked bays and they should pay for a parking permit.. Make it permit holders or 1 hour maximum. also there is a risk that station users will use it if it is free which causes further issues - this parking permit approach would "give back" to the community as recompense for the issues the bays cause to the traffic.

Objection The removal of these parking bays is a very big problem to my family with no other location to park within a mile walk of the property. We have 2 children, a 2 and 1 year old and need close access to the property. We are currently trying to sell our property for other reasons but this will effectively reduce the property value to such an incredible level that we will be stuck there unable to sell. The type of properties on this road require this parking. I object very strongly to this proposal unless other nearby parking is supplied, maybe on the Lammas land opposite or there is a large compensation package. I believe the council has looked at this parking incorrectly as there is congestion leading up to the junction with Meadrow but all the removal of this parking does is effectively move the congestion closer to Meadrow rather than actually removing the congestion. Whether parking is there or not the congestion will remain as Chalk Road is a so called ‘rat run’ from the A3 to


Guildford. In my opinion traffic calming measures would be more appropriate.

Objection Since 1979 we have lived in Chalk Rd for two periods totalling nearly 20 years. Over this time the level of traffic has increased a lot. On a number of occasions the police have told us that parked cars in Chalk Rd did not bother them because the cars help slow traffic down and reduce serious accidents. Your proposal states that because the almost 60m of yellow line is largely covered by dropped kerbs, the yellow line will result in the loss of three or so car lengths of raised kerbs. True, but hugely misleading because residents park along their own stretches of dropped kerbs. The yellow line will therefore significantly reduce available parking in Chalk Rd. Our daughter and her toddler visit us frequently and we have lots of elderly visitors who come for charity bridge evenings, art classes, and dinner parties. If there is no parking left, they will have to drive a long long way away to park. Any suggestions where? A single yellow line with time restrictions, rather than a double yellow line, would at very least allow some extra parking outside rush hours.

Objection This is not a serious problem for motorists: real congestion occurs only sometimes at rush hour, mainly if it is raining or there is a problem on the A3. Even then the real bottleneck is at the east end of Chalk Rd outside Jewsons, and is not caused by parked cars in Chalk Rd. I wonder what your traffic surveys show, and when they were made? The proposed solution to this “problem” would seriously inconvenience residents of Chalk Rd. It would take out a length of road and reduce available parking significantly. Residents and legitimate visitors may not find a place, and would have nowhere else nearby to park. A sledgehammer to crack a nut? We could live with a single yellow line for part of Chalk Rd, provided it applied only during rush hour. A double yellow line would stop parking at all hours, even in the evenings, and cause significant hardship to residents, all to save motorists a few seconds. A single yellow line for rush hour would also discourage the many cars that park in Chalk Rd for the whole day – people that walk to the station or Godalming.

Objection On Deanery Rd we are quite dependent on on-street parking given the number of older houses and flats without off street parking. We are particularly affected by competition with commuter parking for Godalming station . Removal of parking on Chalk Rd will exacerbate the situation and drive more competition for parking on our stretch of Deanery Rd with remaining parking. While the parking on Chalk Rd may be inconvenient for drivers wishing to speed through the train bridge along Chalk Rd, it is likely to create more safety issues with increased driver speed under that bridge. No removal of parking that would exacerbate the situation for residents should be undertaken until a proper plan for addressing commuter parking is in place, such as increasing commuter parking availability near the station and a residents parking scheme.

Objection I regularly need to park far from my home on Deanery Rd due to competition with commuters for the parking outside my home. I am very concerned that the proposed removal of so much parking from Chalk Rd will increase the competition with commuter parking for Godalming Station and mean I have to park even further from home and have a long walk down dark, poorly lit sidewalks and roads to get home at night. I would ask that a resident parking scheme be implemented on Deanery Rd before there is any significant removal of parking on Chalk Rd.

Support I support the proposal to remove the parking spaces on chalk road as during rush hour the road becomes very congested with traffic trying to navigate round the parked cars. The parking spaces do however help to slow the traffic down so thought needs to be given to adding speed ramps as it’s a road used by many pedestrians with a narrow pavement. Deer often also run out of


the Lanlas lands onto the road. There also needs to be right of way/priority signage at the bridge at the end of the road to make it clearer as stand-offs and near misses are a regular occurrence there - particularly if the parking is removed and traffic is likely to approach the bridge more quickly - I would suggest right of way is given to traffic coming up the road (in Charterhouse Road direction). Some of the double yellows on peperharow road should be removed to allow more parking as the double yellows serve no purpose there and go a long way up. That would help ease parking in the area.

Support Driving this road every morning is a real danger, I don't know of any other major highway where there is parking for residents, it causes chaos every day. The problem is that the residents park the whole length with nowhere for you to pull in and escape the oncoming traffic, also from the bridge end you are totally blind as to what is coming towards you, I am amazed there has not been a serious accident. All of these residents have garages and parking areas and should be made to use them, the roads are for driving on and should not be used as car parks, it's happening everywhere and is a real problem, this is one of the worst examples.

Support This area from the railway bridge towards the town centre where parking is at the moment allowed, is an absolute bottle neck. The road is very busy. Most of the houses which front the allowed present parking area have their own garages anyway, and it is always the same cars parked on the road along this stretch. At the moment there is a parking time allowance, but this appears never to be policed, and one can see the same cars parked there all day every day. I totally support the making of this area a NO PARKING zone at any time.

Support I often drive along Chalk Road and there are significant delays caused by the parked cars. The plan to create a no parking passing place gets my full support. Please ensure that the signage is obvious and that the parking restrictions are enforced to enable the success of increased traffic flow along this stretch of road.

Comment Please find below our comments. Whilst we appreciate your concern regarding the congestion caused by parked cars, we are concerned about your proposals to the problem.

1. Many residents, especially the elderly use this space by the dropped kerbs to park outside their houses. These spaces have not be counted. Please don’t put yellow lines in front of the dropped kerbs. I recently had to try and get assistance from the police as a non-resident had parked along the dropped kerb in front of our cars preventing us from leaving our property.

2. Any allowance for parking must be for residents and their visitors only. Issuing free residents permits and visitors passes to each property. There is simply not enough space to accommodate computer parking and the like.

3. Cars race down the road at crazy speeds – partly to overtake the parked cars, but also as they don’t seem to realise the legal limits. Better signage before the bridge is also needed to slow oncoming traffic and clearly show right of way. This must be addressed as part of the issue.

4. If you really need to reduce speed as you approach the bridge than an option would be to create more parking bays beyond No.10 towards Nightingale Road – still for the use of residents only as stressed above.


It is recommended not to proceed with the proposed double yellow lines due to the objections made by residents of Chalk Road regarding their need to park in front of their dropped kerbs, which the majority of the passing place was to cover. However, it is recommended to proceed with the revocation of the 1 hour restriction (Monday to Saturday 8.30am to 6.30pm 1 hour no return within 1 hour).


This restriction has not been enforced in more recent years due to a lack of signing stating the 1 hour restriction. There is currently just one sign in the centre of the bay. However, should the council erect the required number of signs and enforce this restriction, it will apply to residents and their visitors as well, meaning that no resident, nor their visitors, could park anywhere within the bay, including in front of their dropped kerbs, for longer than 1 hour between 8.30am to 6.30pm Monday to Saturday. This one hour restriction, if signed and enforced as part of regular patrols, does not work for residents needing to park on street, which has been repeatedly stated in the above objections. Therefore we have no choice but to proceed with the removal of this 1 hour restriction, which has been happening throughout Godalming and Farncombe as part of previous parking reviews, where it is known that this time period conflicts with residents’ on street parking needs. On the ground, the only change will be the removal of the last remaining 1 hour sign. The parking bay itself will remain in place. Should issues occur in the future regarding parking by non-residents conflicting with residents’ on street parking needs, then permit parking is something that could be considered here, but residents would need to prove to the council that there is support from at least 70% of the households that front this section of Chalk Road before such a scheme could be considered.

Drawing No: 24084, 24146 Deanery Road – GODALMING NORTH


Objection Removing parking along a large part of Deanery Road will have a HUGE impact on residents in the surrounding area not just those in Deanery Road. It will just push the commuter parking problems, along with residential parking strain into other areas. Many houses in the area lack off street parking or even vehicle access. With many new houses being built and planning approval to convert building into flats without parking provision, the parking issues are set to get worse. Removing parking is not going to help. Provision of more station parking needs to be addressed for both Godalming and Farncombe as commuter numbers are on the rise every year. PLEASE take into consideration the impact this will have on the people who live in the surrounding area and already have major problems due to lake of spaces available.

Objection On Deanery Rd we are quite dependent on on-street parking given the number of older houses and flats without off street parking. We are particularly affected by competition with commuter parking for Godalming station during the day and regularly need to park further along Deanery Rd in the areas proposed for removal of parking. Removal of parking on Deanery Rd will exacerbate the situation and drive more competition for parking on our stretch of Deanery Rd with remaining parking. The proposed scheme is also removing parking on surrounding streets such as Chalk Rd, increasing competition for parking on remaining areas of Deanery Rd and will make it almost impossible for residents to find a park.


Removal of parking on Deanery Rd should be minimised to critical safety issues and not be a substitute for improving signage, lighting, footpath and road maintenance on Deanery Rd, which is often poor. Forcing residents to park further and further from their homes and needing to walk further along poorly lit streets further and further from their vehicles is irresponsible and creates an increasing safety issue. No removal of parking that would exacerbate the situation for residents should be undertaken until a proper plan for addressing commuter parking is in place, such as increasing commuter parking availability near the station and a residents parking scheme.

Objection I regularly need to park in the on street parking areas designated for removal due to competition with commuters for the parking outside my home. I am very concerned that the proposed removal of so much parking from Deanery Rd will mean I have to park even further from home and have a long walk down dark, poorly lit sidewalks and roads to get home at night. I would ask that a resident parking scheme be implemented before there is any significant removal of parking on Deanery Rd or other nearby roads such as Chalk Rd.

Support Please see my annotated plan to extend the parking restrictions you are proposing on Deanery Road, to include the section between the driveways of ‘Bicton Croft’ and the parking space at No.10 Deanery Road. Getting out of that parking space is extremely dangerous, as people currently park so as to make visibility impossible and treacherous

Support Wholeheartedly support this new parking enforcements along Deanery Road. For too long now people have been parking their cars where they like without due care or consideration for rules of the road or others safety. This new enforcement will only be adhered to if the correct management of same is implemented initially. Lines of any colour don’t deter some but fines do. I appreciate budgets don’t allow constant monitoring but there has to be some enforcement initially otherwise people will ignore the restrictions.

Comment I am pleased that more restrictions are going in place in Deanery Road, as the amount of parking has reduced sight lines, making the road sometimes dangerous to use, especially the exit from Frith Hill into Deanery, and Deanery into Nightingale. However, I would prefer Deanery Road residents to have parking permits. The reason is that it is very difficult to park here (we suffer from commuter parking). I cannot use my car in the day, as I cannot re-park once I have left. These problems have led to residents converting front gardens into 1 - 2 parking spaces. This adversely affects the appearance of the road, there is a loss of green space and an increase in concrete surfaces (which affects persistent flooding in Chalk Road) and further removes parking spaces permanently from the road. The answer is residents' parking. Can you inform me if this is likely to happen.


It is recommended to proceed with the following amendment: - Not to revoke the 4 hour limited waiting bay outside number 8 Deanery Road. This bay does help to keep one part of Deanery Road clear of commuters. Due to its long 4 hour period, it provides a useful window of time for residents to utilise, particularly when used when coming home from work. As the time period does not apply overnight, it allows residents to leave their cars parked in the bay until the morning, gaining another 4 hour period to then use all, or part of. The majority of the proposed double yellow lines are currently on the ground, as they were installed under a temporary Traffic Regulation Order lasting for 18 months, with the intention to make permanent as part of


this parking review being advertised. Since being installed, these restrictions have significantly improved traffic flow and road safety in the section of Deanery Road, and addressed a very large number of ongoing complaints regarding excessive commuter parking obstructing traffic flow and sight lines. The additional sections proposed (that are currently not on the ground) are by the junction with Frith Hill Road and an extension of double yellows by the junction with Nightingale Road. These two additional lengths were deemed to be necessary when reviewing the temporary restriction layout, in order to further improve sight lines and road safety. The junction of Frith Hill Road in particular is a location that had received countless complaints over recent years relating to poor sight lines and traffic flow obstruction.

Drawing No: 24084 Frith Hill Road j/w Deanery Road – GODALMING NORTH


Objection The proposal for parking restrictions on Frith Hill and Deanery Road are insufficient to ensure that the junction is safe and sight-lines clear. On Frith Hill the parking restrictions should extend from Deanery Road to at least Cliff Hanger on the south side and ideally all the way around the bend in the road. Currently cars parked on this stretch force people going up the hill to adopt blind faith manoeuvre into the path of oncoming vehicles. It should also be noted that the response of people parking on this road/junction to parking restrictions in this area have been to move further along the road without regard to the safety of other road users hence the need to extend the restriction to the point where sight lines are clear. On the north side of Frith Hill double yellow lines should extend from the drive for Knoll Cottage uninterrupted to the drive of number 12 / Bicton Croft as any parking along this stretch of wall obscures line of sight around the bend to the blind summit so forcing drivers into the path of similarly unsighted vehicles travelling in the opposite direction along Deanery Road and into Frith Hill Road.

Support The existence of parked cars near this junction is extremely dangerous as it is very difficult to have clear visibility and people drive too fast and it’s on the brow of a hill.

Support The existence of parked cars near this junction is extremely dangerous as it is very difficult to have clear visibility and people drive too fast and it's the brow of a hill.

Support Again, fully support the restrictions here. Turning either left or right from Frith Hill leaves one exposed to traffic coming up Deanery Road in both directions. Turning into Frith Hill from Deanery Road lower is also hazardous due to inconsiderate parking too close to the junction. Again, hope this will be monitored initially to deter those who don’t obey yellow lines or lines of any colour.


It is recommended to proceed as advertised. The objection relates to other parts of Frith Hill Road that are to be reviewed as part of the 2018 Waverley Parking Review, which will look at the possibility of double yellow


lines on the large bend in Frith Hill Road.

Drawing No: 24085 Wolseley Road j/w Marshall Road – GODALMING NORTH


Support I fully and wholeheartedly support this proposal. The restriction on parking on this corner, which is difficult for large vehicles to negotiate, is long overdue.

Support There has been a large increase in all day parking on Marshall Rd. It is becoming dangerous, especially at school opening/closure times. Parking restrictions should be extended to the whole of Marshall Rd and surrounding streets.

Support It’s impossible to see which Wolesey Road junction I am commenting from in the drop down box on a mobile! But I support the additional lines into Marshall Road - it is impossible to turn there during school drop off. I also support the restrictions on the corner of Lllanaway Road - very difficult to turn round there.

Comment The corner of Marshall Road by the school should be no parking. It is a very dangerous corner and the no parking should be more extensive.



Drawing No: 24088 Wolseley Road j/w Llanaway Road – GODALMING NORTH


Objection I welcome the introduction of parking restrictions at Wolseley and Llanaway roads. However, this does not address the main problem here and in many parts of the borough of parking on pavements. The practice has become endemic. This is a densely populated area and close to the town centre and a station. There is only one route for through traffic and emergency vehicles. Large commercial vehicles park overnight on pavements. In short, there is nothing to stop selfish and antisocial behaviour. It is impossible for disabled people to negotiate the pavements and for two pedestrians to pass. The pavements here are not continuous and Surrey County Council has failed to use building planning permissions to create new footpaths or address parking problems. Lack of action by Surrey will lead to serious accidents and constitutes theft of the environment from non-motorist residents. It is time to stop denying this problem.

Support I have relatives in Wolseley Road and use this junction often. Parked cars make it very difficult to see around the corner.

Support It’s impossible to see which Wolesey Road junction I am commenting from in the drop down box on a mobile! But I support the additional lines into Marshall Road - it is impossible to turn there during school drop off. I also support the restrictions on the


corner of Lllanaway Road - very difficult to turn round there.

Support Fully supported. Parking at this corner has become ridiculous.



Drawing No: 24088 Wolseley Road j/w Hare Lane – GODALMING NORTH


Objection Removal of the parking restrictions outside house numbers 43, 41 and 39 on Wolseley Road is as required. The opposite side of the road was to have the double yellow line parking restrictions retained. If these double yellow lines in front of the houses numbered 58, 60 and 62 and to the corner with Hare Lane are removed thereby allowing parking on that side of the road, the free space for vehicles to pass through will be too small. The request was to remove the parking restrictions only on one side of Wolseley Road. Will you please review your proposal.

Support It is difficult to see when turning into Wolseley Road. Parking on both sides of this road is also a problem.


It is recommended to proceed as advertised. The objection is a misunderstanding of the plan. Double yellow lines are being introduced on the south side, as wanted by the objector. The revocation on the south side refers to legally removing the single yellow line so that it can be replaced with a double yellow line.

Drawing No: 24088, 24091 Fern Road – GODALMING NORTH


Objection Waverley seem to have no understanding about the parking issues in this area. 1. There is pressure on parking places in the evening - when the residents have returned home from work. 2. The proposal to extend the double yellow lines to an area that has a single yellow line will only target the residents of Fern Road and Kings Road on evenings & Sundays. 3. This area is already stretched for parking places and the problem will get worse when the Freeholders Pub is turned into 7 flats without spaces (despite over 50 objections because of the parking problems). 4. I would be very interested to see the justification for extending double yellow lines to this part of the road because I can see no benefit to the proposal save to punish the residents and raise revenue.


5. At a time when we are being enjoined not to lose garden space for environmental reasons, this is only going to encourage people to convert their front gardens into parking spaces. 6. A real issue with parking is the daily use by commuters parking here to use the station.

Support Parking exclusion either side of Old Corn Mews entrance would result in drivers being able to leave the Mews safely. At present although parking is restricted it is not enforced resulting in parking either side of the entrance. This greatly restricts the view of Kings Road and the view of vehicles proceeding either way along Fern Road. There has been a serious accident here and several near misses as a result of illegal parking.

Support And all the roads Officer


Drawing No: 24088 Meadrow – GODALMING NORTH


Objection The 'no waiting' part of this proposal is not well considered, the properties in this section (my house included) rely on the ability to have vehicles parked outside for loading purposes. Due to the proximity to the road, it is not possible for larger vehicles to enter our driveway. Frankly, with the Godalming by-pass in place, measures should be taken to reduce the amount of traffic on Meadrow full-stop. Perhaps designating it a 'no through' road would alleviate the strain that the road is put under.

Objection We are so unhappy with proposed double yellow lines introduction on Meadrow, We have already been told we cannot park on the verges where we have parked for the last 30 years..... Where else can we park?? We feel that SCC do not care about their residents and the impact this has on their lives!! Surely they should offer residents parking for our area?! By the way why are cars parked outside Pegasus garage on double yellow lines completely blocking the pavement never given parking tickets ??? Please respond in the first instance.

Objection Dear Sir(s), Madam(s), I live with my Mother at XX Meadrow in Godalming. I have done on and off since I've been born. In this time, my Mother has always parked her Car on the verge's directly opposite our row of houses, on our side of the road, as to my knowledge these pieces of land have never been utilised for any known reason, nor been prohibited from parking upon (up until a few months ago) I thereby wish to object any and all current and due enforcement set upon the conditions of parking on said verges. I could sit and state numerous reasons, facts and statistics all day long, however, I would like to ask, why now? In all of these years we have paid hard earned taxes, been respectful and mature regulation abiding citizens, why


now does our council and constituency take away our one convenience and perk of living in such a wonderful area. It is an embarrassment to be told such things. All the meanwhile we have wars waging, children being murdered, genocide, homelessness, addiction, poverty, governmental corruption, recession, worry, housing shortage, MONEY shortage and mostly, patience shortage. Forgive my somewhat dramatic view upon such a situation, however, it is no way shape or form good enough for ordinary people like us to be treated in such way. I therefore wish to take this matter to the highest possible power, and I will also be taking this matter to local and national news teams, so the community can see how much we get given back, and how hard-working class people as ourselves are seemingly let-down by our council over such an irrelevant, unused piece of land for our convenience. My Mother has lost sleep over this for months now, and as reluctant I am to admit, she has shed tears and become increasingly depressed as she relies on this parking for her health. She is 57. This is no way in the world for a woman of this (or any) age to be treated. It is not fair on us, and I am disgusted. Please also state any future plans for the land, so I may be aware of good cause and reason, ergo retract my knowledge of 'no future plans'. Greatest respect and kindest regards,

Objection There is currently no on or off-street parking available for my house (or my neighbours), and though there is a space to park up on the curb outside our houses, it is currently a single yellow line. This means that we have some, limited parking available, though still not ideal. By changing this to double yellow lines, this will remove the only option we have for parking for unloading/loading etc. I have 2 young children (XXXXX), and don't want to have to walk miles to the nearest parking space (Kings Road or Catteshall Lane) with the kids and shopping. If anything, you should be removing the single yellow line for this stretch of road to allow residents to park outside their own houses. There is enough space to allow residents to do so without blocking the road in any way, so this should not be an issue.

Objection My objection is that a previous review took place very recently and parking arrangements were amended, to have another review so soon is unacceptable. The recently amended changes work very well and allow those who do not have parking/access to their property the opportunity to receive deliveries and stop momentarily outside when necessary. I do not have access to parking at my property so would ask how you expect me to receive deliveries to my property and be able to stop momentarily to drop off/collect items, for example, my weekly food shopping, with such draconian measures. There is only one property near me that requires access to/from Meadrow and I do not see why many other properties should be inconvenienced for this one person/property. With regard to the grass verges the Council has never maintained these verges in the 15 years I have lived there, so why are they suddenly so concerned about what is essentially an aesthetic matter, on what are very small patches of ground that could easily be concreted over with no maintenance at all. The funds used to make the proposed highway changes could


be better utilised elsewhere in maintaining the highways and pot holes. I wholeheartedly object to this proposal. Objection 1 after speaking to the Meadrow residents no one is in favour of this change it’s totally unnecessary.

2 this will mean we can never unload the car in front the house the current yellow allows us to safely unload the shopping after 6pm ( kids and shopping when you have to park a mile away from your front door is just mean) I will have to relocate as this would not be sustainable for us as a family. 3 no deliveries/post vans will be able to pick up or delivery affecting our small business. 4 elderly in the street will not be able to have they meals/shopping delivered 5 we have stopped parking on the Meadrow during the day as requested at great cost as we now have to pay in the Meadrow carpark 6) the most highlighted problem from your survey should be finding a solution to the lack of parking for residents you are currently doing the complete opposite of what the Surrey residents need.

Objection There is very poor visibility of traffic approaching from the right along Meadrow for vehicles emerging from King's Road into Meadrow. Parking in Meadrow close to this corner, especially of larger vehicles, acerbates the problem. I request that the parking restrictions on Meadrow be EXTENDED to include the area between the bus stop and King's Road. This section of road, in front of Surrey Cloisters, gives the appearance of a lay-by and people park there without considering the danger their vehicles cause.

Objection I strongly object to the proposes double yellow lines on Meadrow, since the enforcement of the single yellow line my daughter has terrible problems finding somewhere to park every day.... before this for 30 years she was allowed to park on the verge near her house this has had a major impact on her life and also mine ... I am now practically housebound and feel totally isolated and depressed and cannot visit her and the family as I cannot walk very far unaided ... could just about make it to the house before. Sometimes I can go on a Sunday but if you install double yellows this wont happen.... You need to focus on the speeding along Meadrow and sort that rather than causing grief and stress to local families . SCC are heartless and do not want to hear about our problems and also they let other cars along Meadrow park on the pavement blocking the highway on double yellow lines without issuing them tickets ....I have photographic evidence of this and want action !

Objection I and my neighbours strongly object to the proposed double yellow lines along Meadrow! Last year we were told we could not park on the verges any longer as there is a single yellow line in place but we could park there between 6.30pm -8.30am and on Sundays ! We have been offered no alternatives or help providing a solution to our problem and feel that SCC have a duty of care to us as residents but there clearly is none whatsoever. We feel we should be allowed to have residents parking and this is an option which should be introduced to try and help with our parking issues and it is a very stressful situation to be in..... It really affects people’s lives. Also we would like to point out that how come Pegasus garage along Meadrow park on the pavement day and night blocking the thoroughfare and there are double yellow lines there and yet no enforcement is made ... totally unfair !!

Objection We are writing because SCC have really made our mum’s life a misery.... she is fed up stressed out and cries a lot cos she has nowhere to park her car any more ... this has caused loads of problems and our lovely Nan can’t come


to our house any more as too far to walk from the car park and our mum cannot afford to keep paying for parking. You let other cars park along Meadrow where there are double yellows... it’s not fair. When we go out the cars speed along our road and its very dangerous...why can’t you introduce cameras or something useful like a crossing further down Meadrow?? We think SCC parking people are mean and horrid to upset people like they do!!

Objection If that weren't foolish enough, let us look at our particular location. We have a verge, followed by a 2-3ft drop to the pavement. There is also a telegraph pole on this verge. But crucially, this verge is neither on the pavement nor in the road. It is of no use to anyone but those looking to load or unload. In short, it is exactly the kind of spot that could help relieve the parking stresses the postcode finds itself under every day. Further to these objections I would like to draw attention to Pegasus Garage on Meadrow. This address falls outside of the review, and yet every single day blocks the pavement with vehicles, often two deep, occasionally three deep and spilling into the road. It is also worth pointing out that the three spaces freed up outside GU7 3HT have to serve six houses, six flats (already a shortfall of nine if each house only has one vehicle) and three office buildings. Add to the fact that King's Road is a popular parking destination for commuters and a further two office buildings here, it should again be obvious that creating spaces, rather than removing or restricting, should be the priority of this flawed review. So, I ask you once more, please visit the postcode after 6:30pm, experience the sheer volume of cars parked anywhere they can find a space, and then explain again why reducing the available parking is a good idea.

Objection Yet your solution is to REDUCE the parking options at this time, displacing more cars. These cars will not disappear, so I would like to know where you expect them to go. If that weren't bad enough, the current housing crisis will only exacerbate the problem. As more young people find themselves unable to move out, but very much able to own a car, houses where there were once one or two cars find themselves burdened with three or four. Again, these are not going anywhere. You should be looking to INCREASE the available parking. Let us look at our particular location – the verge is exactly the kind of spot that could help relieve the parking stresses the postcode finds itself under after 6pm. I would also draw attention to Pegasus Garage on Meadrow. This address falls outside of the review, yet every single day blocks the pavement fully with vehicles. Also worth pointing out is that the three spaces freed up outside GU7 3HT must serve six houses, six flats and three office buildings. Again, this review should have found that creating spaces, rather than restricting, should be the priority. I ask you again, please visit after 6:30pm and witness the struggle.

Objection I object to the implementation of new parking restrictions along Meadrow, at the bottom of Kings Road. There are already adequate parking restrictions in place, but to change this to "no stopping anytime" is highly impractical and unfair to residents. This stretch of road is primarily residential, with very little parking provision. How are residents expected to take


deliveries, drop of people with mobility issues or small children or unload their vehicles if they are unable to stop at any time? Once again this screams of a desk-based assessment where real life has not been taken into account. I implore someone from SCC to come and spend a couple of hours in the Farncombe area and see how ridiculous the proposals are. I have lived in my house for over 4 years and during this time have never seen a traffic incident caused by deliveries or residents stopping to load or unload. If i move house, do you propose the removal men carry my 2 sofas down to Meadrow car park? Of course not. Aside from this matter, parking has reached a critical point in Farncombe, with new restrictions being put in place regularly and no new provisions being made. With many people in the area owning 1-2 cars, plus a van in some cases, where do you propose they disappear to? These vehicles will not vanish into thin air and new provisions need to be made immediately.


It is recommended to proceed as advertised. Residents of Meadrow have been written to by the parking team at Surrey County Council regarding the commencement of enforcement of the single yellow line, and that the restriction also applies to the entire width of the footways and verges adjacent Meadrow. The council has been clear with residents that this restriction will be enforced on both the carriageway and adjacent verges and footways, in order to maintain traffic flow on Meadrow; to maintain sight lines for entrances and accesses situated along Meadrow; and to prevent the persistent damage to the grass verges along Meadrow. Following this action, it is entirely necessary for all of these mentioned issues to be maintained at all times, rather than just for a set period during the day, which is why double yellow lines are now being proposed.

Drawing No: 24090, 24146 Nightingale Road – GODALMING NORTH


Objection The unintended but obvious consequence of double yellow lines on the west side of Nightingale Rd will be that parking will happen on the other side and probably right up to opposite the junction with Deanery Road. The grounds for objection are two fold. Firstly: the traffic travelling N over the rail bridge will then meet oncoming traffic (travelling S on the W side of the road); there will be no line of sight because of the bend. Secondly the ability to exit from my drive will be severely compromised by parking opposite. I would support a scheme which had double yellow lines on both sides. Additionally, there is a need for short term parking and these restrictions will mean that the remaining road space will be taken by the displaced commuter parking. There needs to be some 4 hour limit parking in the area.

Support I welcome the extension of the restrictions. They will help create better sight lines for drivers and enable vehicles from each direction to pass relatively more safely along


this busy cut through residential road and ensure buses do not get held up. However, I remain concerned that this proposal will only encourage more drivers to speed through. Therefore, in addition would like to see a 20mph speed limit imposed or restrictions such as road humps or road narrowing to slow down vehicles, giving priority to traffic from one direction at a time. My house sits right on the rise along Nightingale Rd, resulting in vehicle drivers from opposite directions not being able to see each other until they meet right outside my house. it can be a frightening experience when coming out of my front gate to find a vehicle has mounted the pavement right outside my house, in order to squeeze past oncoming traffic. This road acts as a cut through and rat run for many drivers who simply do not want to use the main road from Godalming to Surrey & vice versa. it is particularly dangerous at peak commuter times. Would like this matter investigated.

Support I live adjacent to the proposed extension of parking restrictions from Deanery road to nos 23 / 25 Nightingale Road. I am only too well aware of the congestion - particularly at the Deanery Road junction -and the difficulties I face in accessing my property that parking currently causes. Also as local a local resident, I have learned to beware of the dangerous speeding that occurs as drivers attempt to rush through the 'single lanes' before being held up by oncoming traffic. Indeed, on occasions I have had to take 'avoiding action' when cars have driven on the pavement at significant speed to 'escape' the hold ups. However, I am concerned that restricted parking on one side of the road will result in the parking shifting to the other! May I suggest that double yellow lines are needed on both sides of the road - and extended over the bridge which is also used for occasional parking! Once there is less parking space in the road, available locations will be targeted by the many drivers seeking free parking before going to Farncombe station.

Support Parking restrictions need to be applied. Nightingale Road is awful to park on for residents due to commuters. It’s dangerous for my wife and New born Baby, who frequently cannot park anywhere near our house. Free parking permits for residents + ‘guest’ permits for when we have guests (I used to live in in Guildford and this is what we had).


It is recommended to proceed as advertised. The potential displacement of parked vehicles to the other side of the street will be monitored following installation of the restrictions. Should additional restrictions be necessary then these will be proposed as part of the 2018 Waverley Parking Review.

Drawing No: 24090 North Street – GODALMING NORTH


Objection My mother lives in North street and has to have carers come to visit her at least four times a day. If as you propose you remove the restricted parking it then becomes a free for all to park along this road not only residents but also commuters which will park all day for free preventing the residents or their visitors to be able to park. However were you to perhaps implement a restriction on parking for one hour during the day then the residents could then remove their cars for the designated time and return later without a problem to park but if a commuter were to park there then


when you implement the parking warden then the commuters would be put off from parking as they would know they would be fined for parking in residents parking area. I am led to believe that this is put in place in other parts of waverley so therefore do not see that it would be a problem. If the road became residents parking permit holders only then this would not work for my mother as she would need to have her carers still to visit 4 times a day as well as family visitors as she has many family visitors we would not all be able to visit if she was restricted to the amount of permits she was allowed and if there was a charge for this then she cannot purchase a permit for every vehicle that would visit over the course of time.

Objection I wish to provide both support and objection. I support the revocation of the yellow line from 2 to 24 North Street. This will provide much needed parking for residents. I wish to voice a concern that commuters will utilise the street, and request that a residents parking scheme is discussed with residents of North Street to give us an option that has not been offered in the plan but is offered elsewhere. I believe once the costs and benefits are presented the majority of the street will be in favour. Maybe our local councillor Mrs Penny Rivers could lead this activity as she lives XXXXXXXXXXXXX. I would like to object to the introduction of double yellow lines outside 20 and 22 North Street on the grounds that this will permanently remove parking space on the street. It should be noted that there has never been a problem with traffic flow or safety around the junction that would warrant this restriction. I believe that the driveway obstruction concern of number 20 would be adequately addressed with a white-line marking only the extent of the driveway drop curb as has been done on other properties in the neighbourhood. If a parking restriction must be applied, a proportionate measure would be retaining the single yellow line which only prohibit parking during peak times and allow parking in the evening and weekends when traffic is typically only that of residents of the street.

Support I fully support Surrey County Council proposed changes to parking controls and/ or waiting/ loading restrictions as stated in the Waverley Parking Review 2017 - Statement of Reasons for North Street (24090).

Support I support the removal of the current parking restriction on North Street, but wish to request residents parking permits. Removal of the yellow line will encourage commuters to park here, and although residents have always had to contend with this (as the parking restriction was ignored for many years) it would be better for us to have permits and the guaranteed space to park outside our house. Also, I feel the introduction of double yellow lines outside numbers 20 & 22 North Street is not necessary. There have never been issues with access or safety at the junction, and this would remove valuable parking spaces from on the street.

Support I support the proposed removal of the parking restriction outside my house at XX North Street in Farncombe. Comment Hi, as the owners of number XX North St we want to ensure that the parking restriction means we can still park fully

across our driveway with a large car or pick up truck. We think from the plans this will be okay as the restrictions covers just a little part of our house, past number XX. If this is the case we are happy to support the plans.

Comment I am the daughter in law of the resident living at XX North Street Farncombe. We see that the proposal is to remove the yellow line from North Street which would give 'no restrictions'. The resident is a blue badge holder and has carer's visit four times a day.


At present it is not always easy for the carers or family to park outside of no XX or even nearby, so we can only foresee that by removing the yellow lines could cause more of a problem as commuters catching the train could leave there cars there all day. If this proposal goes ahead would it be possible to have a disabled bay outside of no XX or at the very least restricted parking.


It is recommended to proceed as advertised. The county councillor obtained views of the residents of North Street prior to this proposal. The majority supported the removal of the single yellow line without the need for permit parking at this stage. However, should the majority of residents (70% of households or more) support permit parking in the future, then it is possible that this could be considered as part of a future parking review of Waverley.

The proposed double yellow lines outside number 20 are to maintain driveway access and sight lines and to also prevent parking opposite the junction. As members of the public cannot park in front of dropped kerbs without the permission of the homeowner, the actual loss of on street space here is minimal. With regards to this location, the length of the vehicle mentioned in the second comment has been taken into account. Regarding a disabled parking bay, if the resident has no off street parking, a valid blue badge, and a vehicle registered to their address, then they could apply to Surrey County Council for an advisory disabled bay to be considered here.

Drawing No: 24091 The Oval – GODALMING NORTH


Objection The roads close to Farncombe station are perfectly safe parking areas for commuters and I have never seen inconsiderate parking in this area. The station car park is normally full and so commuters are forced to park in the surrounding roads. The people who are forced to do this are always considerate of local residets in my experience, and double yellow lines near The Oval will simply move the problem. Many people park outside my house and I have no problem with that and would not expect the council to react by introducing double yellow lines.

Objection I am objecting to the proposed parking restrictions on The Oval because there is no accompanying proposal to create a solution for people who do need to park their cars. I could accept this proposed restriction but there is no alternative parking proposed. The new restrictions will simply push the problem elsewhere. Many people park their cars in the area to access Farncombe Station, so introducing these restrictions will mean they all park elsewhere. People are not suddenly going to stop driving to Farncombe Station, so there is a desperate need to provide more parking


options. The existing car parks are full very early and there is a very long waiting list to get a season ticket for the car park. I understand the need to solve certain congested areas, but alternatives do need to be provided, otherwise this will just create a congestion problem somewhere else. I cannot support these proposals in their current form with no proposed solution for people that need to park. Thank you.

Objection Waverley seem to have no understanding about the parking issues in this area. 1. The pressure on parking places is in the evening - when the residents have returned home from work. 2. The proposal to extend the double yellow lines to the Oval will only target the residents of the Oval and Fern Road on evenings & Sundays. 3. This area is already stretched for parking places and the problem will get worse when the Freeholders Pub is turned into 7 flats without spaces (despite over 50 objections because of the parking problems). 4. I would be very interested to see the justification for extending double yellow lines to this part of the road because I can see no benefit to the proposal save to punish the residents and raise revenue. 5. At a time when we are being enjoined not to lose garden space for environmental reasons, this is only going to encourage people to convert their front gardens into parking spaces. 6. A real issue with parking is the daily use by commuters parking here to use the station.

Objection I note with despair the restrictions on The Oval - limited to No Parking / Waiting at any time on the circle of grass. Frankly, residents of The Oval often have no choice but to park on the grass. And no one is going to get killed if they do! Have you tried driving AROUND The Oval towards Summer's Road? With commuter and residents' cars parked ON THE JUNCTION BEND? I am astounded that this vehicular and pedestrian death trap has been totally ignored and will be subject to no restrictions. I not raising an objection for personal benefit; I live just off The Oval and have a more than adequate driveway. I am objecting on behalf of the community which has to endure deeply UNSAFE driving and walking conditions in the area.

Objection I am a resident on the Oval I can’t afford a dropped curb and same goes for other hard working family’s that struggle for money. We park on the road as I have no choice. If you put your plans in place then I will have no place to park my van or car. The commuters are the biggest problem yet we are the ones getting punished. So many residents will be affect there will be 30 cars parked on the green if you go ahead which would damage the grass and leave the kids in the area no place to play. If you insist on your plans then you WILL pay for my dropped curb and driveway first along with other angry residents who will have no place to park or you can make it FREE permit only for residents and no parking for commuters with signs up so they get the message. So those are your options 1,FREE permit parking with bays for residents or 2,pay for my driveway and dropped curb it’s really simple and will save a lot of anger from residents. I want one of your people to arrange to come round and see the problems we already have without your ridiculous plans. My number is XXXXXXXXXXX I look forward to your call

Objection The Oval is not the main problem with parking in this area as most cars are residents. I feel double yellow lines in this road will not help the situation only affect local residents who will no longer be able to park outsude their own homes. The main issues is commuters parking in the offshoots of The Oval such as Pondfield Road and Nursery Road where parking is often dangerous and inconsiderate to other road users. It may be more beneficial to restrict parking to say 2 hours Monday to Friday, in these areas to deter commuters using it as a free car park or offer residents permits. It is my understanding that rail travel is cheaper


from Farncombe to London then it is from Guildford or Godalming which is why Farncombe has become a public car park for commuters. Maybe some negotiations with the rail companies could be considered to help with this problem.

Support Yellow lines required and enforcement of illegal parking. Resident’s permits should also be issued as yellow lines will decrease the number of spaces available and these will be taken by train users from other areas leaving residents with nowhere to park. Summers Road also desperately needs speed restrictions at the junction of the Oval as cars are travelling too fast in such a built up area. Thank you.

Support You can’t just make the restriction in certain roads you will just push the problem further out. I live in kings road and I have actually been blocked in by a commuter and had to involve the police and yes I have a drop curb and somebody parked right across me. The road is getting worse for commuters because it’s free. There is a large pay and display car park at the end of the road which is virtually empty daily because commutes want to park where they can for free. Make the whole area resident parking with restricticted bays. Just make sure residents have enough parking permits at a reasonable cost.

Support I would like to see the whole oval and the joining road the oval and pondfield residents parking only. Commuters park on the bends and junctions and double park

Support I would also like to see restrictions along pondfield and the oval as I’m fed up with commuters parking and double parking and on the junctions. Someone is going to be killed!! Buses and lorries can’t get through.

Support I would encourage a parking restriction around the entire oval including the part past field lane towards summers road. The parking has become increasing bad for residents trying to leave our property due to the commuters turning up between 5.45am and 7.30 and not returning till 7.pm over the last year the situation has increased by 50% And it's only a matter of time when an accident occurs due them also parking on a blind bend th the junction.

Support I support this proposal as parking in this area is extremely high during week days due to communter traffic (at the weekend the road is clear ( However the proposal has not gone far enough. Parking is a real problem on the part of The Oval (coming in off Summer's Road). This really is a matter of safety and the restrictions should also be extended to the junctions either end. Cars park so close that visibility is completely obscured when travelling in either direction. It is particularly difficult for service vehicles

Support I strongly support the introduction of parking restrictions around the grass amenity space at the centre of The Oval. The main issue here is not parking in the road itself but on the amenity space. I understand that if the proposed parking restrictions are introduced, it would make it an offence to park on the grass behind the yellow lines. I strongly SUPPORT this.

Comment The roads nearest to the station should all have parking restrictions as it is a nightmare for residents. I live on Binscombe Lane and the resident parking in George Road which was needed has now pushed all of the commuter parking up onto our road. I think the parking restrictions need to be much wider around the station than they currently are.

Comment For the Oval "No Waiting" zone, it is not clear what issue this is meant to address. Waiting is not an issue. There is parking here and on the surrounding roads, so it is not clear what a "No waiting" zone does to address the parking issue. Proposals do not address parking issues in the vicinity of The Oval and in particular The Circle. Occasionally dust carts cannot make it down The Circle to empty wheelie bins due to parking blocking the route for longer vehicles. If this affects dust carts, it would certainly affect emergency vehicles, leaving residents of The Circle and Broadwater Lane vulnerable in the event of a fire. As residents of The Oval with a driveway on The Circle, we do not contribute to the parking issue as we always park in the garage. Yet on occasion it is difficult to access the driveway due to vehicles overlapping the driveway.


We would recommend a short length of double yellow lines covering our driveway and that diagonally opposite. This would address the issue of larger vehicles needing to access The Circle (refuse and emergency vehicles), and the issue of vehicles blocking access to our driveway. To address the issue of parking in the vicinity of The Oval, we would suggest restricted parking zones.

Comment As a surveyor working on properties in the area I have to make visits to 5 or 6 properties a day. In order to do my job I need to park close to each property. Timed parking and double yellow lines can make it very difficult to park resulting in delays, longer journeys and more expense and pollution. If restrictions are needed limited parking periods give the best chance of finding space, providing they are monitored and not all taken by residents with permits. If residents only can you consider a scheme to provide contractor passes as visitor permits are often unavailable.

Comment Please would you look again at putting double yellows or introducing parking permits for residents for roads near Farncombe station. The Oval, The Circle, Pondfield Road, Orchardfield Road & many others are congested on weekdays with commuters parking for the station. It’s getting worse! Access for buses & emergency vehicles etc in Farncombe is becoming increasingly difficult. Residents don’t want to pay another ‘tax’ for parking permits; however if every household paid say £25/year, I think that is a reasonable amount. More than that would not be acceptable. With the council squeezing more homes into the area; rather get the developers to foot the cost for permits & traffic wardens. It cannot carry on as it is though. The situation is a real problem & getting worse, as a result residents are struggling to find parking.

Comment I think we need to introduce resident’s permits to this area. I am concerned that the commuters who currently park on the Oval will migrate to Lower Manor Road and Wolesey road. It is already very difficult to park in the area for residents, as we live on a single yellow line on Hare Lane. We have gone down to one car, but ultimately eliminating the Oval will push both residents and commuters to other streets in the area. Resident permits seem the only option.

Comment The proposal 24091 is to have double yellow lines around the grassed Oval. The problem is not that vehicles park immediately adjacent to the grassed area but, rather, that they park on the grass itself, which serves as an open space for outdoor play for children. Double yellow lines will not prevent this parking.


It is recommended to proceed as advertised. The vast majority of vehicles park adjacent to the footway around The Oval, which is where vehicles should be. The proposed double yellow lines are to prevent the minority of vehicles from parking on the edge of the grassed oval, which is damaging to the grass and obstructive to the carriageway if partly on it. The grassed oval is clearly not intended to be any form of parking area for residents or any other member of the public.

Drawing No: 24091 Owen Road – GODALMING NORTH


Support I support the proposal for Owen Road but would have also liked to see further restrictions at the junction of Owen Road with St Johns street opposite the Co-op due to delivery lorries being unable to manoeuvre into the rear bay of the Co-op and causing


congestion here.



Drawing No: 24113 Silo Road j/w Furze Lane – GODALMING NORTH


Objection In collaboration with Number XX Furze Lane, we Number XX strenuously object to the plans for parking restrictions outside of our properties. Our houses were newly renovated in the past 5 years and were built without driveways. As a result, we have no option but to park our cars directly on the street outside Number 23 and Number 25 on Furze Lane and alongside our property on Silo Road. Putting these restrictions in place simply means that both properties have nowhere to park our cars. The main problem of the parking is caused by Number XX Furze Lane (opposite) they use a number of vehicles for business purposes blocking the street on weekends and during the week their workforce leave their cars outside our houses on Furze Lane and Silo Road. Having nowhere else to park our cars and parking far away from our houses is not an option with the likely hood of children in the near future. Number 23 & 25 Furze Lane should not lose our right to park outside our houses because of the neighbour’s misuse of parking. Please note that your plans are out of date, they do not show the two new houses built at back of our houses (Number 61 & 59 Silo Road). Thus; if your thoughts were that we could park our cars after the restrictions on Silo road, this is not possible as these houses have private driveways. For the above reasons the proposed parking restrictions cannot go ahead.

Objection In collaboration with Number XX Furze Lane, we Number XX strenuously object to the plans for parking restrictions outside of our properties. Our houses were newly renovated in the past 5 years and were built without driveways. As a result, we have no option but to park our cars directly on the street outside Number 23 and Number 25 on Furze Lane and alongside our property on Silo Road. Putting these restrictions in place simply means that both properties have nowhere to park our cars. The main problem of the parking is caused by Number 32 Furze Lane (opposite) they use a number of vehicles for business purposes blocking the street on weekends and during the week their workforce leave their cars outside our houses on Furze Lane and Silo Road. Having nowhere else to park our cars and parking far away from our houses is not an option with the likely hood children in the near future. Number 23 & 25 Furze Lane should not lose our right to park outside our houses because of the neighbour’s misuse of parking. Please note that your plans are out of date, they do not show the two new houses built at back of our houses (Number 67 & 69 Silo Road). Thus; if your thoughts were that we could park our cars after the restrictions on Silo road, this is not possible as these houses have private driveways. For the above reasons the proposed parking restrictions cannot go ahead.

Support I agree with the Furze Lane and Silo ROAD junction. Please also consider Orchardfield Road Silo Drive junction too as lots of cars park on that blind bend and they need double yellows too.

Support Hi Just a thought as I live in the road almost opposite the junction of silo


Would it not make sense to yellow line outside my house and no 26, 30 and 32 as the issue of vans parking on our side of the road also stops traffic at that particular junction, either turning or simply just passing through I've have had to knock on people's houses a few times to get a van or car moved off of the grass area (pavement) to let a bus get through, Maybe the proposed lines on the other side will help but it seems logical to me to do all of it as that is a difficult junction Thanks for your time

Support I fully support this proposal. Living in the area and often turn out of silo road onto furze lane. Residents park right on the bend on both roads making it very dangerous to pull out. It is also limits vision and is a safety risk what with many children walking in the area.

Support As a resident and driver using this junction on a daily basis I support the proposal to restrict parking on both roads as shown on the documents on display at the offices of Waverley Borough Council. The reasons for supporting the restrictions are as follows: In the interests of Road Safety. Vehicles regularly park right up to the junction completely blocking the view of other moving vehicles. There have been collisions at this junction. The most vulnerable being motorcyclists. I have experienced ‘near misses’ navigating this junction in all directions. The roads in question are part of a bus route. The bus drivers who use this junction several times a day experience great hindrance from the parked cars obstructing the road, as do drivers of other large vehicles. It is unreasonable to expect the convenience of on-road parking to the detriment of the safety of other roads users. Extensive development at ‘Greensands’, Furze Lane will generate even more vehicle movement along this road adding to the current hazards. I submit that there cannot be any valid objection to this proposal. Therefore the restrictions proposed can be put into effect.


It is recommended to proceed as advertised. This proposal was in response to a 47 signature petition, signed by residents of Silo Road and Silo Drive, including some from Cornfields. The petition reported ongoing issues regarding very poor sight lines at this junction, which also forms part of a bus route. Parking within 10m of a junction is prohibited under Rule 243 of the Highway Code, even without parking restrictions in place. However, it is necessary to introduce double yellow lines here to maintain sight lines, road safety and access at all times. No resident has a right to park on the public highway outside their house, particularly those with properties located on or near to a junction. Sight lines and road safety always has to be the priority for junctions experiencing persistent issues such as this.

Drawing No: 24145 South Hill – GODALMING NORTH


Objection I object the proposed parking restrictions in GODALMING NORTH South Hill (24145). Introduction of double yellow lines on significant part of South Hill will make the situation worse for residents with no off street parking or whose off-street parking is not suitable for their cars (i.e. driveway on a steep hill, houses with old narrow garages,


more than one car in household) - those who have no choice other than street parking in front of their houses. Some of the issues described in the Statement of Reasons document (such as non-residents taking space away from residents) were raised two years ago during active phase of large construction in nearby area (residential complex on the south of Flambard Way) when contractors used South Hill for parking. Now, after construction is completed, there are much fewer non-residents parking here. During the last few months I did not have any issues finding street parking at any time. Taking away roughly half of all available street parking in South Hill will squeeze both residents and non-residents to remaining non-restricted spots and make situation much worse for residents who have to rely on street parking as their only available option. If there are other reasons to introduce double yellow lines on large part of the street (i.e. road safety and sight lines) then all other parts of South Hill should be restricted for non-residents by introduction of resident permit scheme.

Objection The proposals for double yellow lines, in order to restrict on street/pavement parking, on South Hill do not appear to address all the problems associated with both vehicular and pedestrian access/ usage. The parking adjacent to house numbers 42 to 45 inclusive constantly create a " pinch point" restricting access for delivery/service vehicles as well as blocking the pavement for pedestrians with childrens buggies. The vehicular turning "hammer head" adjacent to house numbers 46-53 inclusive is also used for on street/pavement parking and this creates both a hazard and risk with larger vehicles struggling to reverse.

Objection I am objecting to the proposed parking restrictions outlined in Project No 3282/WAV, Drawing No 24145. The No Waiting At Any Time restriction from No 40 South Hill to No 43 South Hill will unnecessarily penalise the residents of these properties. Furthermore this restriction does not deal with the foreseeable access issues that will remain from No 43 to No 51. I wish to propose that the restriction is time based, Monday to Friday, 09:00 to 16:00 and that this restriction is extended to No 51 and also includes the roadway which leads into the adjacent garage area. Furthermore a restriction should also be placed between No 31 and No 33 to prevent parking on both sides of the road in this area. If this revision is adopted the current parking issues would be eased without detriment to residents and visitors during evenings and weekends. Access for deliveries, waste collection (the current main issue) and emergency services, will also be catered for.

Objection Double yellow lines will 'SIMPLY FUNNEL' even more town workers wanting free parking down into the blind ends of the cul-de-sacs. We want this area for turning cars, access for emergency vehicles, deliveries, and for regular rubbish collection (which already doesn't happen due to cars blocking the turning space). Safety and access is a huge issue when the cul-de-sac is blocked. The entry/exit to the footpath is dangerous when not visible to the road! "Residents Only Beyond this point" enforcement signs are the ONLY OPTION if the yellow lines are painted, placed where the yellow lines stop! This would ensure some parking for residents near their homes, space for service vehicles and safe turning space etc. (Victoria Road was granted Residents Only status during the hours of 8am-6pm years ago ... this pushed more cars into South Hill) Without this the situation for residents in South Hill will be made even more unbearable. (A situation which has arisen over the last 6 or 7 years, due to Surrey Highways granting permits and parking restrictions in ALL the surrounding roads, thus funnelling all workers seeking free parking into South Hill). We purchased our homes in what was once a quiet, safe, residential street ... it isn't any longer, it's a nightmare where the residents are afraid to use their cars in case they have nowhere to park near their property when they return.


Objection I object to any form of parking restriction for residents who live in south hill. I also object to any charges also that may at this time or at any future time be introduced to park on south hill both for residents and for their visitors.

Objection I think no further regulations should be introduced about parking, such as parking permits, payments by time or other restrictions. There are around already too many charges and limitations about parking, we just need few streets where to find some freedom and relief from charges and no concerns about limited time of stops. It will be much better to rely on common sense and polite behaviour of every car driver, not to park for too long on one place. It may be the case that sometime, someone will not comply with those common sense rules, but in general this will be better for general feeling of people. Please leave our streets alone!

Objection The plans for the south hill area would not resolve the issue but simply move the cars that park their into a smaller area, the only time the parking becomes an issue is when cars are parked opposite each other just after the entrance to the side road (1-10), this can block not allowing larger vehicles(ie fire service) passed, The corner by 30 and 31 does not need to go up so far half this is not a dangerous corner and very few cars take the left hand turn coming down from the cul de sac.

Objection The proposal is only for part of the road. Therefore the people parking for town will still park in the road but just move to the available spaces. There will still be parking issues but they will now just be nearer us where our children play in tbe cul de sac. This is very unsafe.

Objection Dear Sir With reference to the above, we welcome any attempt to improve access to properties. on South hill With reference to your letter 28 Jan 2016. It was stated 1, The highest level of parking were at the lower end which are near to the town. 2 The parking can be obstructive & cause problems for refuse collection vehicles& residents The current proposals of. Project.No 3282/ Wav do not address the problems mentioned above There are often cars parked on both sides of this road on the approach to the End near the town . Which makes access extremely difficult, even for the average car It is therefore essential, that some parking restrictions must be in place in these areas to allow access & TURNING , to all vehicles In the current situation, where there is a total absence of parking restrictions. The refuse collection vehicle is frequently unable to reach the. End near the town. As a consequence, bins are not emptied. The collection is then done at a later date, which has even been on a Sunday! My grounds for the objection are. The proposed extensions of yellow lines, is insufficient to solve the parking congestion on South hill

Support The advertised proposals for South Hill are fully supported by myself and my wife, and would wish them to be implemented as soon as possible. We would also prefer it if the ‘no waiting’ could also be applied to the turning head located fronting house No’s 47,48,49,50 and 51. This would not enable the refuse vehicle to turn, but also many other highway users. A number of vehicles park in this location partly on the footway, which causes an obstruction to pedestrians every time this happens. A further request would be to include a waiting restriction of one hour throughout the estate, thus allowing others to park from time to time and exclude all-day commuters. These latter cause many problems and difficulties to pedestrians (because many


park part way on the footways), and also create restrictive use of access to driveways all day. Please take these comments forward together if possible with the advertised proposals.

Support i am supporting the plan to do a red line of no parking opposite my house it will help with getting in and out of driveway and also allow the refuge lorry to get through

Support I think the proposals make a great deal of sense. Whilst still allowing cars to be parked in the roadway the layout of the proposed double yellow lines will address the issues of sight lines and access for large vehicles, such as emergency vehicles and refuse collection vehicles. The only comment I would make is that the parking restrictions on the north side of South Hill should continue up to the driveway of number 76 to line up with the ones up to the layby on the opposite side to allow for visibility around the blind bend which forms the entrance to the road. Cars parking too close to the bend often cause an obstruction.

Support I generally support the proposed changes. However it might also be beneficial to add no stopping lines at the far end turning area of South Hill (directly behind the old Mole Valley store, by the cut-through footpath), as often the bin lorries struggle to turn around there due to the cars left there by people working in town.

Support I am hopeful that the no waiting lines should reduce the dangers created by people parking on junctions and at the brow of the hill. However I fear that people may stick to the guidelines at first and start to push the boundaries if they feel that this is not being enforced by visiting patrols of parking attendants, which is likely to result in an angry backlash by the some of the residents.

Support I accept the proposal for the parking restriction but feel that more yellow lines are required in turning points and pinch points especially around the properties of no 45 - 54 . There seems to be a constant problem of people parking and blocking the pavement and restricting use of pavement to push chairs wheel chairs and visually impaired people. This problem is mainly caused because of the footpath that leads besides 49 and leads to access to lane leading to Brighton Road and access to town for people working or shopping in the town. In the past a survey was issued by the council into a consideration of restricted parking for perhaps 1hr in a day, my consideration is to extend that to 2hrs in a day possibly from 11am to 1pm.

Comment Thank you for the consultation regarding parking on south hill. Is it considered necessary to have an all out ban on parking in the proposed red areas? Could parking on the proposed red areas be permitted on evenings, weekends, be available on certain times in the weekday? This would allow residents to have the flexibility of parking their cars on these areas of south hill.

Comment There have been real problems with non residents parking along the last bend in South Hill so lines are needed as rubbish truck often can’t get through. However, these measures, whilst needed, will see Parking become even more of an issue on the sections on South Hill that won’t have lines. Lots of non residents are parking here now, particularly Waitrose workers who we have asked not to park on the bend by the garages. However, one woman in particular still does and frequently blocks the pavement too. others are leaving their cars for several days/overnight. I think the best solution would be residents permits as otherwise Parking will become even worse for some residents outside their houses.

Comment We have people arriving before 0600 hours and not leaving sometimes until after 2100 hours right in front of our kitchen window. More often than not there are cars parked on the opposite side of the road preventing the Dust Bin Cart and many delivery vehicles from gaining access. We have no objection to Residents permits.

Comment I support the introduction of parking restrictions in South Hill. As a resident it is full of cars from people who park and then walk


into town/to the station and it makes parking difficult for us. I have one concern though: If the proposed no waiting at any time sections of South Hill are approved there is nothing to stop people parking along the cul-de-sac part (the first left, before Bydand House, outside numbers 4-7). Would it be possible to make South Hill, or that little section, a permit holders only area? If it were permit holders only it would alleviate the problem of non-residents parking and leaving their cars up and down South Hill causing congestion and difficulty parking for residents.

Comment The January 2018 proposal for parking restrictions on South Hill is a realistic ( including financial) response to the parking problems. There has been repeated problems with access for Public Service and other wide vehicles . The proposal should avoid the narrow road widths, and obstruction of and blocked sight lines at the three T junction corners The installation of the double lined areas will increase the pressure to find day time parking on the remaining unrestricted sections. Some residents have taken steps to block parking in front of their houses. Residents in 51 to 60/ 61 use a variety of objects in the road to block parking. These dwelling can use of up to 12 garages and hard standing at the lower west facing area of South Hill. The occupants of number 62 ` cones' parking space opposite their residence for one car. Houses 32 and 33 have now chosen to cone the road in front of their homes. I do not know the legal status of the use of cones by residents on a public road. But I suspect that it could be challenged since the road space is in `public' ownership. A linked problem is the habit of drivers parking their car by positioning their vehicles half way onto the public pavement. I assume that double yellow banding will preclude drivers parking half way onto the pavement. This situation is the practice on the existing road and pavement extending down from house number 40 up to number 49 and beyond. Theses house have off road driveways and garages. Can the legal / road traffic acts position of this half on/ half off the road parking be clarified.

Comment In general, the proposal relating to South Hill is approved but it does appear that parking may be possible on both sides of the road outside numbers 69 and 70 as shown on the plan, thus preventing access to numbers 33 to 68, particularly for the emergency services. Perhaps the "No waiting at any time" restriction should be extended to prevent this. I feel also that similar restrictions should be introduced in the turning areas at the end of each of the three cul-de-sacs.


It is recommended to proceed as advertised. The proposed double yellow lines are intended to address the most important parts of South Hill in terms of access, without taking too much parking away from properties with no off street parking and a need to park on street. Restricting turning heads and additional sections of road, particularly from 43 round to 53, would see far too much on street space lost for the residents with terraced properties here. The most feasible restriction for this north western part of South Hill would be a permit scheme introduced using signage only (permits holders only past this point). This is where permits are needed most in South Hill, and is the most workable solution bearing in mind it will prevent non-residents from parking whilst still allowing residents to park, something which yellows lines do not achieve. This is something that we will be looking into as part of the 2018 Waverley Parking Review.


The double yellow lines outside 30 and 31 extend up to an existing driveway dropped kerb. It was not deemed to be practical to leave a car length space between this dropped kerb and the junction. The double yellow lines outside 41 link a junction with an inside of a bend, and was not deemed to be suitable for parking to take place, hence why no gap was left here.

Drawing No: 24145, 24148 Catteshall Lane – GODALMING NORTH


Objection I am objecting to the proposed parking restrictions for Catteshall Lane. The reason is that if parking restrictions were introduced along the road there would not be sufficient local parking for residents. The reason parking is bad at present is due to the office blocks in the road use the street parking instead of their own car parks. Triad sub let many of their office spaces but don’t include parking so these workers are forced to use the street parking. Also towards the ambulance station you often get problems with cars & vans parked on both sides this is caused by building work on land behind Sainsbury’s & Underwoods meat company seem to have many of their chiller vans dotted along the road at night. If you view the parking at night (when mainly residents are using it) there are a lot more spaces. Instead of no parking at any time it would be better to introduce residents permit parking thus only a smaller number of cars would park along the road. Introducing this along the whole road on the same side from the roundabout by South Hill to the Mill Medical Practice would greatly reduce the vehicles parking along the road in the daytime when many residents are at work. Making it easier for buses & ambulances to navigate the road. Most houses have driveways but most houses have at least two cars & many of the driveways only have space for one car so residents use the road outside these house to park additional cars.

Objection Whilst we totally agree that something needs to be done shifting the problem from one side of the road to the other will only exacerbate the situation. It will not solve the dangerous slalom effect by the ambulance station, will make it difficult & dangerous for the large volume of vehicles that that exit daily from the Linden Homes estate, the business parks etc and will almost certainly result in cards parking on both sides of the road where there are no double yellow lines. Perhaps a better soluntion would be to place the lines on the opposite side of Catteshall Lane for the entire length from Sainsbury's back entrance to the bend where it becomes Catteshall Road and then introduce a residents only parking scheme on the other side. This will greatly reduce the number of vehicles parked along the road during the day, most of which belong to the office workers (who have a large partially empty car park) and the overflow of commercial vehicles from Douglas Drive.

Objection My mother, XXXXXXXXXX, lives at XXXXXX, Catteshall Lane. She is a stroke victim. I visit her regularly and was brought up in Godalming and lived at that address for many years.


We object to the proposed no waiting restriction on Catteshall Lane. It will make it more difficult to turn in and out of the houses and more difficult for visitors to those houses. It will not resolve the problem of poor parking and will simply transfer it to the other side of the road and thus make it even more difficult and hazardous for residents getting in and out of their houses by car. I note that the proposed restriction does not extend further than Sandford Mews yet the real problem lies further west opposite the Ambulance Station where vehicles are parked on both sides of the road, visibility is poor and road users have to 'zig zag' around parked cars. It is 'an accident waiting to happen' in that spot and the development of the old Batemans site will increase its hazardous nature. We do not consider that the proposed restrictions will resolve the parking problems nor ease the difficulties for residents. We are not clear where the 'strong support' for this change is coming us. It is certainly not from us. Thank you.

Objection If you take away on street parking on this road you will move the cars parking here to the smaller side roads. As these are mainly commuters during the day they will have no regard to park considerately. This will cause more obstructions as at times emergency services and bin lorries will not be able to pass as they will be unable to find the owner. People already drive fast along cattershall lane and with no parked cars causing them to slow down speeding would increase and accidents could occur. The only section that needs to be restricted parking due to narrowing of the road is from the ambulance station to the rear of Sainsbury’s.

Objection I strongly oppose the plans to instate restricted parking in catteshall lane. As a resident I believe this will affect me. Firstly the side of the road you are planning the restriction is completely residential and most families own 2cars . This will just force these residents to park either further along the road outside other residents properties or on the opposite side of the road which I believe to be the more dangerous part of the road considering the bend in the road going towards Catteshall Road. Would it not be more beneficial to make the opposite side of the road restricted parking as there is presumably off road parking for the residents already living there or alternatively make the road residents parking only at a certain time during the day as the congestion is increased by workers in the area parking on catteshall lane. This would then free up the road. I have children who use this route to walk to school and I would be very concerned that the numerous cars that would be parked on that side of the road would restrict their view when crossing the road

Objection I think the proposed additions of no stopping does not go far enough. It needs to be on both sides of the road from the roadabout with Woolsack Way to Alderbank Drive. The visibility along that road is awful with the current parking, buses struggle to get through often and is dangerous with many cars weaving among the parked cars. The large vans often parking on there make it particularly difficult.

Objection Double yellow lines mean cars will just park on the other side of Catteshall Lane. This problem has occurred since yellow lines were put at Langham Close/Catteshall Lane, cars now park directly opposite, making this part of the road a dangerous chicane. Currently cars park along one side, there are more than 12 driveways on this side providing gaps for vehicles to give-way. If the proposed plan goes ahead, cars will just park on the other side of the road, with only one driveway so no room for vehicles to give-way. Catteshall Lane is only wide enough for two standard size cars to pass without one giving way. Also the driveway residents will have great difficulty swinging round into their driveways or being able to exit as they will not be able to pull back far enough if a car is parked opposite, needing to bump up onto the pavement. My greatest concern is for ambulances based in Catteshall Lane to be able to exit toward Guildford. Currently, driveways provide "give-way" spaces. If cars park on the other side of the road, ambulances will have great difficulty. Catteshall Lane is


not wide enough for more than two cars to pass without one giving way. Those who park in Catteshall Lane are commuters, office, Rocking Horse Nursery staff and Waitrose. Evenings / weekends its just residents vehicles, recently with Woodside Park closing down for development, the parking is less anyway. If anything we need the same as the town-end of Catteshall Lane, 4 hour parking bays on the driveway side allowing people to go about their business/pleasure but not to clog and block the road, with double yellow lines on the other side to ensure safe and smooth traffic flow.

Objection The proposed line simple forces even more to park where residents struggle already and those who could park in their business parks do not. There are other better alternatives and the residents should not suffer unnecessarily. There are multiple options for improving both traffic and parking along this road and the current line work is dangerous. You need to actually consult residents and work with them. Look at applications for more unnecessary housing and looking at parking options especially near the boat house end of Catteshall Lane. Provide residents with options don't force restrictions.

Objection As we have lack of parking spaces freely available, please leave the restrictions criteria as they are today. Do not introduce new ones. Thank you

Objection By introducing double yellow lines at the beginning of Catteshall Lane, this will simply move the parking to the other side of the road, making it far more dangerous for the traffic that come along the road. There would also result in cars parking anywhere there are no double yellow lines, and that would mean that the residents of the houses in front of the industrial park will not be able to park, as other people move further down the road to find parking.

Objection I live on Catteshall Lane and although the restrictions aren't outside my own house, the current parking will be pushed towards my house making it difficult to find space. I have a small child and my partner has a van that is full of tools and so we both need to be able to park close to our house. I would suggest that it would be better to put double yellow lines on the opposite side of the road and make our side resident parking only.

Objection My property appears on both these drawings. I have hard standing, wide enough for one car only. I do not support your proposal to revoke the two limited waiting bays opposite the junction with Victoria Road (Mon- Fri 8.30am to 6.30pm 4 hours no return within 4 hours). In fact I would support you increasing the number of these bays (but not all down the road). You state in your reasons that ‘the bays were originally intended to allow space for a turnover of visitors and tradesmen’, presumably visiting properties like ours. You then go on to state that this provision was originally intended to visitors and tradesman to park in amongst the long line of all day parked vehicles at the western end of Catteshall Lane. As a local resident, I and my neighbours need to be able to access and continue to use these parking bays for our visitors and tradesmen (my visitors have young children and therefore buggies, others are elderly and disabled). If as you state ‘the demand for long term parking etc etc.....I suggest you create more car parks or direct these long term parkers to existing ones, and get people who maybe work and don’t want to use alternative means of transport to pay for the privilege of parking close to the town centre. I wonder how much observation you have actually done of this situation, at all times of the day. Currently parking space is taken up by contractors working on the Wilmott Dixon site. I understand this work will be completed soon. The majority of the contractors are not local and usually vacate the street the street parking around 3pm. However the space is quickly taken up again by long term overnight parkers, not all by local residents. I fail to understand why the parking area allocated to council staff, adjoining Flambard Way and Woolsack Way was not allocated to the Wilmott Dixon site for their deliveries, of which there have been countless numbers over the past three years.


These vehicles have damaged the local highway infrastructure. The situation has been aggravated by Victoria Road becoming a ‘residents only’ zone. Some households have 4 cars or more. During the day there are spaces in Victoria Road not being used and nobody during the day can use them if they are not associated with the street. The rented properties in Victoria Road do not bother with permits and park on Catteshall Lane opposite my house, so again no space for our visitors. The difficulty in easily accessing the information for this proposed change leaves a lot to be desired. Both the library and council office appear to have a box file of much reduced in size from A3 to A4. One of my neighbours said it was ‘too small to read or understand’. One of my colleagues at the Hub aged approximately 35 said ‘he couldn’t fathom out the website’. The whole situation has become intolerable.

Objection We would like to register our objections to the proposed changes to the parking controls on Catteshall Lane. in one of the houses in front of which double yellow lines are proposed. Whilst we agree something needs to be done about the parking along Catteshall Lane, we do not believe that the proposed solution will achieve the desired aim of making the road safer. This is for the following reasons:

1. Visitors to the area and residents who do not have sufficient off-street parking will still need to park their cars. Double yellow lines on ‘our’ side of Catteshall Lane will simply mean that people park on the other side. If you look at the map on which the proposal has been drawn, you will see that there are a number of T-junctions and entrances to office block car parks, the visibility being restricted is that of driveways where the volume of traffic is much lower.

2. If double yellow lines are put on our side of the road, cars are very likely to park anywhere they can on both sides of the road further down the road.

3. On the other side of the road, there are longer stretches where it would be permissible for people to park. At present, as a result of the dropped kerbs, parking is naturally staggered along the road. This means cars can safety pass in both directions with minimal disruption to traffic flow. Long lines of parked cars are likely to disrupt the flow.

4. We understand that there are issues with visibility when people along Catteshall Lane are exiting their drives. With reduced visibility we wonder if the solution might be to reverse in and for mirrors to be installed at appropriate locations. Moreover, the proposals will shift the parking and therefore visibilities to the other side of the road with the multiple junctions and office block car parks.

We suggest and alternative proposal which we believe would meet the needs of all residents. 1. Install double yellow lines on the opposite side of Catteshall Lane from the back entrance of Sainsbury’s to the bend

where Catteshall Lane becomes Catteshall Road. This will negate the dangerous slalom effect currently in place by the Ambulance station.

2. Restrict parking on ‘our side’ of the road by making it ‘residents parking only’. This will mean far fewer cars parking, as those who work in the offices parks and the overflow of commercial vehicles from Douglas Drive and various builders etc, will no longer be permitted to park in the street. At weekends and during the evening the road is considerably quieter.

3. The residents’ parking could be laid out in such a way that vehicles would not be permitted to park right up to peoples drive on ‘our side’ of the road, as they do at present improving visibility for those exiting their drives.

Support Driving on catteshall Lane is becoming dangerous with all the cars and van constantly parked along the road (it has virtually


become a single lane street) . Several accidents have already happened and something should be done. So thanks. I wonder also when the council will sort out the deteriorated tarmac and many potholes which add to the dangerous stare of the toad. Regards

Support Catteshall Lane has become a dangerous road for pedestrians, cyclists and car drivers. I have lived here for 30 years. The new developments do not provide adequate car parking spaces. On street parking of assorted company vans severely restricts vision for all and makes the road a slalom course. Exit from my property (and many others) is perilous. Cyclists are forced onto the paths. My line of sight for a safe exit from my property is often non existent. Oncoming traffic cannot see me. Myself and my family find this a very stressful situation on a daily basis. This has got progressively worse and will deteriorate more when the old police station development is packed with vehicles. Despite having ample space, workers from the offices park leave their cars in the road. Commercial vehicles should be banned from parking along this road, as they are from the Linden estate. I support the plan for red lines along the stretch of road that includes my property. Safety for all concerned is paramount. Waverley BC acknowledge this by presenting this proposal. Attention needed to parking on the bend outside the flats sited before Grange Close. It has become a blind , hazardous bend.

Support We are in support of the yellow lines along Catteshall Lane. We often experience drivers parking and over hanging our driveway making entering and exiting it dangerous.

Support In full support of this. There are a number of large commercial vans that are always parked adjacent to the driveways on Catteshall Lane and due to their shape and size they obstruct visibility (which is obstructing the road, against 242 of the Highway Code) which makes pulling out onto a road (that is notorious for people speeding down it) dangerous and has caused me to have a number of near misses due to this as oncoming cars can not see you pulling out of the driveway. A number of these large white vans come from residents in the new Riverside Development opposite, due to this being a private estate their contract forbids these types of commercial vehicles from being parked where the owners live (and it’s been enforced), thus they’re electing to park them adjacent to driveways. Others vans come from the Langham Park commercial area just off of Catteshall Lane and it’s not uncommon at the weekends for the commercial park to be empty of these vans yet you find them parked all up and down Catteshall Lane. Speaking about this issue with my neighbours some have actually had cars collide with theirs whilst pulling out of their driveway, due to vans / cars parking next to their driveway making it more difficult for the oncoming traffic to see them. Where our house is there is also a junction on the other side of the road which these vans regularly park opposite, this is in clear violation of 243 of the Highway Code. Unless something is done I fear that it’s only a matter of time until someone crashes into my car whilst I’m pulling out of my driveway, double yellows seem the most practical solution to prevent the issues raised. All the driveways can fit multiple cars where the lines are proposed.

Support Full support for this, everyday our lives are put in danger trying to see pulling out of our driveways.

Support With reference to the proposed parking controls on Cateshall Lane, may I express our approval and trust they will be implemented as soon as possible. They will overcome the dangers of accessing Catteshall Lane from our property due to parked vehicles blocking a clear view on this side of the road. Although not shown on the plans, I am assume that parking


restrictions will be applied around the junction of Catteshall Lane and Alderbank Drive for the same reason.

Comment I live in Harts Yard it is in the centre of Godalming and not on a road. When parking permits were introduced we were not included. Have tried to challenge this , but have never received a response. I am concerned that if more restrictions are bought in we will have no option but to rent spaces for our 2 cars at a cost of £2000 + (we already rent one space and park the other half a mile away. I would not feel so strongly if I had managed to get a response re my enquiries previously, but all attempts fell on deaf ears.

Comment It would be helpful if the double yellow lines could be extended along Catteshall Lane, particularly those opposite Douglas Drive, as a number of local businesses park their numerous vans along this section, meaning that is very difficult to see around the 'slalom' because of both the height and the length of these vehicles.

Comment Hello, I'm currently living at 6 Catteshall Lane, I have seen the proposed parking changes. wouldn't a residents only parking be more appropriate to the Lane and not yellow lines. surely the implementation of yellow lines would move the parking further up Catteshall Lane and cause over parking at the other end i.e on the bend and at the junction of Catteshall Road?.

Comment As you are aware, parking is ridiculous on Catteshall Lane but I do fear that when restrictions are put into place everyone will then park outside our properties (1-21 Catteshall Lane). Most of the residents are families with small children and for safety need to park near our properties. Please could you consider implementing Residents Parking Only outside our properties so that we can pay for permits and ensure our parking or put restrictions on the other side of the road to that proposed thus lessening the demand slightly. Many thanks.


It is recommended not to proceed with the proposed double yellow lines and not to proceed with the proposed revocation of the 4 hour parking bays as part of the same proposal.

The existing 4 hour bays have been stated by residents as still being required and of use, so should therefore remain in place. The proposed double yellow lines front a large number of Catteshall Lane properties. 4 of the objections made represent 3 properties directly fronting the proposed double yellow lines. This represents a minority in respect to the total number of properties fronting the proposed double yellow line, all of which were letter dropped during the advertisement. However, whilst the majority of properties fronting the proposed double yellow line would appear to be in favour of what is being proposed, there are clearly concerns amongst other residents of the local area regarding the displacement of the vehicles from the south side of the street to potentially the north side and elsewhere in Catteshall Lane. The potential for cars to move to the north side of the street was known during the parking review. As the north side mainly consists of raised kerbs, it is in many ways more suitable for parking to take place in large numbers than the south side, which has all the driveways and dropped kerbs that have been the crux of the complaints. However, in hindsight, and in light of the objections made, it is difficult to proceed with this


scheme knowing that the displacement parking could cause new issues elsewhere in Catteshall Lane, particularly for the junctions and business entrances on the north side, opposite where the double yellow lines have been proposed. It would therefore be best overall to revisit this location as part of the 2018 Waverley Parking Review, where there are already several logged complaints regarding access issues in and out of nearby Douglas Drive. Potentially, a more extensive parking proposal could be made for Catteshall Lane, but one which better manages the displacement parking. If this cannot be achieved, the road may need to be left as it is it but with double yellow line proposals continuing to target the junctions and bends along Catteshall Lane only, as has been the case up until now. This is something that will need to be determined during the 2018 parking review, taking into account these objections made to our 2017 parking review proposal.

Drawing No: 24067 Chapel Lane, Milford – GODALMING SOUTH, MILFORD AND WITLEY


Objection The problem of large vehicles in Chapel Lane has recently been caused by the development opposite the Bowling Club. Prior to this large vehicles were able to pass over the curb and pathway to negotiate the corner. The curb and pathway used to be damaged but the Highways Agency reinforced it to accommodate the traffic. All has been satisfactory for many years. Recently however some of the concrete has been removed and the developers opposite have moved the grass line to the curb edge thus returning the old problem! They have made things even worse by putting metal posts on the curb edge where the concrete “path” used to be. It would seem that, after being in this location for over 100 years, the Bowling Club is now being made to suffer by losing parking spaces. We already have problems with our neighbours because our visitors find it difficult to find parking spaces. This change will only make things worse! The solution would be to remove the metal posts and realign the bend back to where it effectively was before the development opposite.

Objection I have lived at number XX for 5yrs . During this time Parking has always been an issue, especially during the summer months when the bowling club is in use, and when the Clockhouse applied for a liquor licence, they then put gates on their car park which has caused a bigger issue. If you take away another 12 parking spaces away, there is not enough parking for the residents as it is.

Objection As XXXXXXXX of Milford Bowling Club I am writing to object to the parking restrictions planned for outside the Bowling Club. We know that the big lorries using the entrance opposite the club struggle to turn with the cars parked


there but we would be a lot happier if it was restricted parking during the day and left as it is after 6.00pm and weekends when the giant lorries should not be going in and out. Most of the parking spaces during the day are used by the doctors and dentists patients we mainly need them in the evenings and weekends. Thank you for considering this objection and I hope you can come to a decision that will be agreeable to all parties.

Objection It is not clear where lines are proposed. If at the junction, I support, but further along I go to Milford Bowling Club and parking there is limited, so provision needs to be made for bowlers to be able to park. Many of these people are elderly and have to wheel heavy bowls to the clubhouse.

Objection With the in-fill of houses (most recently, the house next to the doctor's surgery) this has created further issues that exacerbate the inability of articulated vehicles to manoeuvre onto Chapel Lane, which might have been lessened if the front garden layout had been designed differently. With local residents and the Milford Bowls Club adversely affected by this parking proposal, what alternative parking arrangements are going to be made for the vehicles that will be displaced, if this parking proposal is accepted? Will there be allowance to park vehicles in new places, or will there be permission to park overnight in existing places such as the doctor's surgery and / or Secretts car park?

Objection I would like to object strongly to the proposed parking restrictions outside the bowling green on Chapel Lane in Milford. Every week day from 7.30am to 6.30pm, staff and patients of Hurst Farm doctors and dental surgery, park along the length of the proposed restricted area and there is also an overspill from Chapel Court which does not have sufficient parking for all of its residents. I live in the property XXXXX to the bowling green and rarely get the opportunity to park close to my house due to the above. On top of that the bowlers frequently park on the road, making parking outside our property extremely difficult. During the bowling season we regularly see an influx of around 30 vehicles on the street. Some of them park on the grass verge, which will only become more frequent if they can't park on the road, thus damaging the verge and causing the area to deteriorate. If the proposed restrictions went ahead, we would lose 4-5 spaces for vehicles on Chapel Lane. We would like you to consider making it residents parking rather than a double yellow line. If the restrictions are being introduced due to large lorries needing turning space, we would suggest that some of the grass verge outside garden cottage (the part which is council owned), could be covered with tarmac to provide extra turning space. Many thanks for taking our views into consideration.

Objection Putting double yellow lines on Chapel Lane adjacent to the Bowling Green will put unacceptable pressure on the small amount of available parking space remaining along the road. Daily, there is overspill onto the road from patients and staff of the doctor's / dentist's surgery and Chapel Court, several of the residents having long vans/trucks which do not fit in the car park. Between April and October bowlers park along Chapel Lane at all times, and there is a huge influx of cars on match days which occur several times a week. There is already a problem with


bowlers parking on the grass verge next to the bowling green, and this will worsen. We often struggle to park close to our house, and the new parking controls will only exacerbate the situation.

Objection Parking is already hugely pressured in Chapel Lane, most houses have at least 2 cars, this coupled with the fact that people who visit Hurst Farm doctors and dentist and the Clock House use the road to park. This is without the regular visitors to the bowling green. Without the option to park alongside the bowling green there will be quite simply nowhere to park. There are 4 houses near the proposed yellow line area that do not have off road parking, I in 1 such house. At the moment I manage to park outside my house, or at least on the same side of the road, this means that I can get my young children safely to the car and back without having to cross the road. Drivers already drive far to fast up and down chapel lane, the cars parked alongside the bowling green mean that they HAVE to slow down, without these cars parked here I fear that the traffic in Chapel Lane will become even faster. On occasion it can be frustrating waiting for a lorry to manoeuvre around the corner into AVS fencing, in reality though, this doesn't actually happen all that often.

Objection Sir/madam. I would like to object to the proposed road marking change at Chapel Lane, Milford. I do completely understand the reasons for the proposal and it is a small length of road to be changed, however parking down Chapel Lane for residents is extremely tight. Very few houses have off-road parking and so many people park on the the road and it's verges creating severe bottlenecks. The buses that serve the Lane and the Elderly poeple's Clockhouse Centre already find it difficult to navigate their way down the lane. I am sure ambulances that may have to access the doctors and Clockhouse Centre will also struggle to navigate the lane due to cars belonging to residences and general road users. Creating a No Parking at any time area will compound this problem exactly where you do not want it i.e. The doctors and Clockhouse area. Residence will be forced to park closer to the main road or further down the lane, causing a domino effect. Also this problem will be worse still when the Bowls club has its gatherings and games. The bowls club and green is exactly where the proposed change is. Please do visit Chapel Lane to see these issues raised down the length of the road, ideally when majority of people are home.

Support In my view this is a practical solution to avoid the problem of lorries turning at the junction of St Joseph's Walk with Chapel Lane. Because of the space restrictions imposed by people parking outside the bowls club, the careless lorry drivers cause extensive damage on the verge outside. We hope this will give them more room to manoeuvre thus eliminating further damage.

Comment I would assume this has been brought about by your planning department allowing a house to be built on the corner of the access to the drive for Secrets / AVS etc that your planning department allowed to be built opposite the bowling green a well used facility in the village. This will cause a massive problem with parking when the bowling green is being used. Also the use of doctors and dentist and day centre all allowed by your planning department to be built within 100m of each other.


I would suggest a better option would be ban access for large articulated lorries into Chapel Lane. As the Lane is totally unsuitable for such vehicles. After recent serious / fatal accidents at the end of the Chapel lane due to restricted visibility I would suggest parking restrictions outside Post office and shops would be required?


It is proposed to proceed with the following amendments: - The proposed double yellow line outside the bowling green to be changed to ‘No waiting Monday to Friday 8am to 6pm’. This will allow this section of road to be parked on in the evenings and weekends and should allow ease of access for the majority, if not all, of the large goods vehicle visits to the business area opposite the bowling green. The proposed double yellow line on the corner outside the surgery will remain as double yellow.

Drawing No: 24067 Portsmouth Road, Milford – GODALMING SOUTH, MILFORD AND WITLEY


Objection If double yellow lines are introduced local businesses will lose custom. The village hall car park is not for public use but for users of the village hall.


It is recommended to proceed as advertised. The extension of double yellow lines here is less than 2m long.

Drawing No: 24135 Brook Road, Wormley GODALMING SOUTH, MILFORD AND WITLEY


Objection I really don't think that all the extra double yellow lines are necessary in Brook Road. The sight lines at the junction of Brook Road and Petworth Road are already very clear and extending the yellow lines here will not help at this junction.

Support Thoroughly support these amendments and extensions. Please also consider further restriction opposite entrance to Queen Mary House to make road crossing safer there


for pupils who enter there every day. Officer


waverley parking review 2017 consideration of … · waverley parking review 2017 – consideration...

Documents