Parking panel - local solutions

[Norman Dryden]

The decision not to proceed with the S6 parking zone did mention that alternative approaches would be considered. There was, in a recent political party newsletter, mention of discussions between the Community Council chairperson and our councillors of options including part-time single yellow lines and ‘Restricted Zones’. This mentions local consultation and a report and recommendations to be made to the City Council, but further details have still not reached residents adjacent to the zone.

The concerns and objections of those immediately beyond the zone related not to the parking zone per se but to the overspill of resident and commuter parking into their area. These same concerns will apply to any other scheme which substantially restricts parking by other means. We would therefore have to see the plans and know the number or percentage of vehicles which would be displaced by the new proposals, to be able to gauge the effect on our area.

The Council did not fully involve and inform those immediately beyond the S6 zone in the original planning procedure. Many were not aware of the possible impact and they had to be alerted by other residents taking action to inform them of the probable effects of the plans and how to make representation.

If the new plans are on a scale likely to affect those outside the area, I trust that we will be fully informed, advised and consulted by the City Council and the Community Council, that the existing representations regarding overspill will still be considered as valid, and that further representations on any new scheme will be sought and considered.

Norman Dryden

[mikehunter]

At the first meeting of the new GPCC on Oct 21, the proposals of the 'parking panel' were discussed.
Although Cllr Mackenzie was unable to attend, an email was tabled, summarising their proposals.
I have only a print copy which it would not be practical to reproduce here.
However, it is intended to notify and consult residents.
Exhibition of proposals in Newington Libaray. Public meeting probably in Salisbury/Mayfield Church Hall. Dates to be arranged.

[John Palmer]

There is now a copy of the report that went to the CEC Transport Committee on the News section of the web-site, which outlines the main points of the proposals.

[Norman Dryden]

The following remarks reflect a viewpoint from those south of the railway line who might be affected by the current plans.

Many of the issues raised at the public meeting were specific and individual, and it was difficult to judge whether there was any consensus. It may be that the written feedback forms provide some clarification.

As is known, within the rectangle of Grange Loan, Mayfield Road, Relugas Road, and Blackford Avenue, the parking problem is concentrated to the north-east. I don’t know how this compares with the Council’s figures, but my quick count on a weekday, indicated only 6% of parking spaces in the Findhorn Place, east section of Fountainhall Road and local offshoots, were empty, compared with 25% empty spaces at the south and west section of the rectangle.

That suggests some possibility for spreading and solving some of the problem within the area; how restrictions could be fine-tuned to do that is another matter. I assume the present imbalance is some combination of the higher housing density in the northeast section, its proximity to town or transport for commuters, and possibly that some parkers are S1 refugees without parking permits.

It seems likely that the proposed amounts of part-time single yellow lines may be too extensive, and could cause considerable overspill south of the railway line. Any information on the current proportions of commuter and resident parking would help clarify the problem, but, given that the situation is being blamed on commuter parking, a likely scenario following implementation is that e.g., an early morning restriction would result in residents occupying the unrestricted parking spaces and commuters finding few possible parking places and thereafter permanently decanting elsewhere (and probably to West Savile Terrace and adjacent streets).

The above scenario has been presented to ‘S6’ residents as an advantage of the proposed scheme. The information sheet advises them that ‘Residents will also have access to the unrestricted areas which commuters will give up in the evening and long term parkers will give up in due course. When local residents take these spaces the commuters will have to look elsewhere for all day spaces.’ (my emphasis). That seems, on the face of it, at variance with the intent expressed, to those south of the railway, to try to contain the problem within the S6 area.

I take the point that any conflict could be regulated by a phased introduction of the single yellow lines, but I think we’d need some survey of the current parking density south of the railway and a guarantee of monitoring and of the process being halted well short of saturation of the Savile, Blackford and West Mains areas.

A number of speakers at the meeting mentioned, as I previously have, the large number of empty spaces in the North Grange S1 section. I’m not sure if the occupancy rate of 16% of parking bays has materially altered since I last counted. I note the intention to try to open a restricted number of the empty bays to all day commuter parking if necessary. It seems to me that either we go for a small scheme which tries to deal with the problem of ‘S6’ largely within S6 or, for any proposal which moves substantial amount of commuter parking from S6, we need acceptable plans which spread the problem fairly throughout the area, including into S1 as far as necessary. We already have all the marked bays and double yellow lines in S1 which delimit its substantial and currently unused parking capacity.

Fairly accommodating and spreading the current problem would then allow any necessary future minor changes or major transitions to be phased gradually and without the problems caused by the previous block implementation of S1.

Leaflets about the current scheme were distributed to all households ‘directly affected’ by the plans, and not to those outside the area who are largely unaware of the plans or the possible secondary effects on them, and would be little concerned with the detail within the area. However, the issue will certainly be of concern outside the area if there is to be any overspill. And that now depends on the feedback obtained from within the area and what plans are now proposed. I hope, however, it will be taken as read that those in the Savile Area will generally be opposed to any plans which move more commuter parking onto us. That will apply not only to car owners but to all residents whose amenity and environment will be adversely affected. Savile Area (West Savile Terrace, Macdowall Road and various side roads) has high density housing, and residents in 700+ houses would be adversely affected by any substantial further pressure on parking availability within our area. We are particularly vulnerable to now being squeezed between city commuter parking and the expanding King’s Buildings parking problems.

Norman Dryden
112 West Savile Terrace