Parking Survey

We conducted a parking survey from  24–Mar to 01-May 2015 with a total of 51 recordings being made.  

The objectives included

  1. Assess the level of parking at the bottom of Hillway. 
  2. Identify if there are many residents from elsewhere in the estate parking for long periods (>4hrs) at the bottom of Hillway.
  3. Identify whether extending the allowed parking  time in the current 2hr zone to 4 hours is likely to have any impact.
  4. Assess the impact of creating ‘south of Langbourne’ zone where only residents living in Langbourne or south could park for greater than 4 hrs.
  5. Assess whether the current HLE policy of allowing visitors to write their own visiting badge is being abused

PARKING SURVEY RESULTS - SUMMARY

Respondents’ profile 218 questionnaires were returned (compared to 130 in 2009), of whom 64% came from houses, 36% from flats. 87% of respondents had 2 or fewer cars, including 6% who had no vehicles.  

Is parking a problem – and will it become so?

Only a quarter think there is currently a parking problem (abuse of the system often being cited as the reason).

Agree parking is a problem 27%

Neither/nor 27%

Disagree 46%

The view of those living on the avenues is comparable to the sample as a whole. However parking is clearly an issue at the bottom of the estate (Bromwich Avenue and the bottom of Hillway) where 53% think parking is a problem (10 out of 19 replies)

Slightly over half agree there should be a limit to the number of cars that can be parked on the roads. Not surprisingly, the more cars people park on the Estate roads the less likely they are to support the idea and, if they do support it, the higher they think the limit should be – in other words, a limit is OK as long as the cars I park are OK!

Visitor parking

Only 28% think the current visitor parking system of informal notes is not working (predominantly, verbatim comments suggest, because of either abuse of the system or problems with the parking services company); and only one third consider that a more formal system such as scratch cards would be a good idea. These latter are evenly divided as to whether the number of scratch cards should be limited or not. There is overwhelming resistance to paying for scratch cards.

‘Personal parking problems’

Most frequently cited ‘problems’ were the parking services company, house refurbishment obstructions, delivery vans, not being able to park near home (and conversely people parking who live in other roads), abuse of the visitor system, the 24/7 enforcement and parking on cross-overs.  

Conclusions

The survey does not give the committee a mandate to change the current system (or specifically to introduce a more formal system of parking management).   The survey should very probably be repeated shortly after the refurbishment/ reoccupation of the flats is completed.

Full report with graphics to follow here shortly