Agenda item

Hassocks Parish Council Parking Review 2019 (CSMS03 (19/20))

Report by Director of Highways, Transport and Planning.


The Committee is asked to consider the response to the public consultation and authorise the Director of Law and Assurance to make the proposed Traffic Regulation Order in part, as specified in section 4.9 of the report and the plans attached as Appendix D.


17.1   The Committee considered a report by the Director of Highways, Transport and Planning (copy appended to the signed minutes).


17.2   Mr Speller introduced the report and explained that Hassocks Parish Council had picked up the review and had developed the scheme and put it out for advertisement.  The review had received many responses, and many of the objections had been ratified.  Mr Speller confirmed that other alternatives had been considered, including park and ride and additional car parks.  Whilst the County Council would support these alternatives, however it was noted that they would require significant investment.


17.3   The Chairman welcomed Mr Weir, Chairman of Hassocks Parish Council, to talk through the scheme.  Mr Weir explained that the scheme had been a long running exercise that covered a large area.  The scheme sought to resolve traffic flow issues by addressing parking issues.  The County Council had provided feedback on the scheme.


17.4   Mr Weir spoke about the objections that had been received.  Some objections were linked to requests to include additional roads in the scheme; other comments were linked to the siting of passing places, which had been moved to address the concerns.  Mid Sussex District Council had objections on elements of the scheme for 1 hour parking restrictions in the middle of the day which would be difficult to enforce.  In response to the objection, the particular restriction had been removed from the scheme which resolved the objection.  Mid Sussex District Council were happy to enforce the restrictions in the amended scheme.


17.5   Ms Lord, Local Division Member, gave support to the proposed scheme.


17.6   The Committee made comments including those that follow.


  • Raised concerns that all the objections had not been resolved and that the proposals may cause displacement issues. Ms Lord explained that the consultation happened in December and almost a year had passed to investigate and address the issues.  The comments in the papers relating to displacement were linked to misunderstandings with the scheme.  Mr Weir confirmed that the County Council had advised on displacement consideration at the start of the scheme and that work had been done to reduce displacement issues as much as possible.  For example, three extra limited parking spaces had been included in an area where restrictions had been introduced.
  • Felt that the proposals may impact Mid Sussex District Council’s enforcement over other areas. Ms Lord commented that the proposals looked to introduce parking restrictions which would help emergency and refuse vehicle access and formalise parking that drivers should already be respecting.
  • Queried the secondary project to introduce a new multi-storey car park. Mr Weir reported that the County Council had been approached on this as the proposed location was contaminated land which would only be available to a public body.  A local resident who had been involved with the scheme confirmed that the site near the station was up for sale.  The County Council had confirmed they would enable infrastructure access and a potential footbridge.  Network Rail had been approached who had confirmed that they did not buy land; however if funding was secured they would maintain the site.  Mr Speller confirmed that the funding would not come from the County Council, but a pitch could be made for funds from the Department for Transport.


17.7   Resolved – That the Committee, having considered the responses to the public consultation, authorise the Director of Law and Assurance to make the proposed Traffic Regulation Order in part, as specified in section 4.9 of the report and the plans attached as Appendix D.


17.8   The decision was agreed by a majority vote of the members present.

Supporting documents: