Preston Park Station parking zone could face legal challenge

Preston Park Station parking zone could face legal challenge

Preston Park Station parking zone could face legal challenge

First published in News by

Furious residents have consulted lawyers after council officers backed new parking restrictions despite mass-opposition.

Opponents of proposed parking restrictions north of Preston Park Station say recommendations for a controlled parking zone are “undemocratic” with 70% of residents opposing the scheme in a public consultation.

Lawyers representing ConsultUs, a residents group set up to seek better consultation on any new parking zone, have warned Brighton and Hove City Council about proceeding with the scheme.

James Thompson, of ConsultUs, said: “The council’s own guidelines state that parking schemes will only go ahead if there is a majority of respondents in favour. To proceed with this scheme would be fundamentally undemocratic.

“Our lawyers have written to the council to point out that proceeding with the scheme would be a breach of the council’s own guidelines and therefore unlawful”.

Last month results of a second consultation on a Monday-to-Friday paid- permit and pay-and-display scheme showed 141 objections (70%) and 62 people in favour (30%).

The roads affected are: Maldon Road, Matlock Road, Tivoli Crescent North and Tivoli Road.

Angela Moore, of Tivoli Road, said: “It would seem that officers are breaking with council policy regarding what constitutes a majority.

“I find it unbelievable that quiet residential areas like ours, so far out of the centre of Brighton, should be forced to have a parking scheme at all. One might be excused for thinking it is a money- making exercise.

"One thing that it is, though, is divisive and disruptive, setting neighbour on neighbour with upsetting results. This is not the Brighton that I have known, loved and lived in for nearly 60 years, and I blame the council and its officers.”

Doris Levinson, of Tivoli Crescent North, said: “In the council’s consultation document it states they would replace the white lines across peoples’ driveways with double yellow lines.

“This amounts to stealing. I paid the council, not only for the crossover to my driveway, but for a white line as well. How unfair and undemocratic is the fact that they intend to take away what is legally paid for and institute punitive double yellow lines?”

Ruth Keynes, of Maldon Road, added: “Clearly, this scheme is only about raising revenue and the council will stop at nothing to get what they want.”

A Brighton and Hove City Council spokesman said: “All views and repre¬ sentations made during the consultation have been carefully considered and a decision as to the way forward will be taken by councillors at next Tuesday’s committee meeting.”

A decision on the proposals will be made at an environment, transport and sustainability committee meeting at 4pm today.

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:00am Tue 4 Mar 14

esh lad says...

The Green Jackboot.....we will listen and take note with ear plugs and blunt pens.
The Green Jackboot.....we will listen and take note with ear plugs and blunt pens. esh lad
  • Score: 27

7:50am Tue 4 Mar 14

salty_pete says...

As with any "consultation" exercise, the council is legally obliged to do it, but can take no notice of the result if it so chooses. How do you think all other road schemes have gone ahead against massive opposition.
As with any "consultation" exercise, the council is legally obliged to do it, but can take no notice of the result if it so chooses. How do you think all other road schemes have gone ahead against massive opposition. salty_pete
  • Score: 19

8:05am Tue 4 Mar 14

BNJuan says...

70% of all residents in these streets have not objected- 70% of the small number that responded to the consultation objected.

I don't know how many residents there are in these streets in total, more than 1000? In that context 141 objections is a much smaller proportion than suggested.

Those residents that did not respond are unlikely to be strongly against the idea. Therefore it sounds like the vast majority of those who would be affected are not too concerned...
70% of all residents in these streets have not objected- 70% of the small number that responded to the consultation objected. I don't know how many residents there are in these streets in total, more than 1000? In that context 141 objections is a much smaller proportion than suggested. Those residents that did not respond are unlikely to be strongly against the idea. Therefore it sounds like the vast majority of those who would be affected are not too concerned... BNJuan
  • Score: -32

8:12am Tue 4 Mar 14

fredaj says...

BNJuan wrote:
70% of all residents in these streets have not objected- 70% of the small number that responded to the consultation objected.

I don't know how many residents there are in these streets in total, more than 1000? In that context 141 objections is a much smaller proportion than suggested.

Those residents that did not respond are unlikely to be strongly against the idea. Therefore it sounds like the vast majority of those who would be affected are not too concerned...
That's the way it works - and it works both ways.
[quote][p][bold]BNJuan[/bold] wrote: 70% of all residents in these streets have not objected- 70% of the small number that responded to the consultation objected. I don't know how many residents there are in these streets in total, more than 1000? In that context 141 objections is a much smaller proportion than suggested. Those residents that did not respond are unlikely to be strongly against the idea. Therefore it sounds like the vast majority of those who would be affected are not too concerned...[/p][/quote]That's the way it works - and it works both ways. fredaj
  • Score: 14

8:18am Tue 4 Mar 14

Eugenius says...

Main point is that the article only mentions a second consultation, the council's position is that the first one was split 50/50, and resulted in a concession to the scheme, being revised to Monday to Friday instead of all week. The formal traffic regulation order following the consultation received more objections but 60 of these arrived in one envelope.
Main point is that the article only mentions a second consultation, the council's position is that the first one was split 50/50, and resulted in a concession to the scheme, being revised to Monday to Friday instead of all week. The formal traffic regulation order following the consultation received more objections but 60 of these arrived in one envelope. Eugenius
  • Score: -17

8:45am Tue 4 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Eugenius wrote:
Main point is that the article only mentions a second consultation, the council's position is that the first one was split 50/50, and resulted in a concession to the scheme, being revised to Monday to Friday instead of all week. The formal traffic regulation order following the consultation received more objections but 60 of these arrived in one envelope.
The Councils' position is well known thank you Eugenius.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Main point is that the article only mentions a second consultation, the council's position is that the first one was split 50/50, and resulted in a concession to the scheme, being revised to Monday to Friday instead of all week. The formal traffic regulation order following the consultation received more objections but 60 of these arrived in one envelope.[/p][/quote]The Councils' position is well known thank you Eugenius. mimseycal
  • Score: 16

8:49am Tue 4 Mar 14

Plantpot says...

Residents parking is fabulous. Once it's introduced you'll wonder how you ever did without.....
Residents parking is fabulous. Once it's introduced you'll wonder how you ever did without..... Plantpot
  • Score: -10

9:45am Tue 4 Mar 14

We are the 99% says...

We are the 99% wrote:
salty_pete wrote:
As with any "consultation" exercise, the council is legally obliged to do it, but can take no notice of the result if it so chooses. How do you think all other road schemes have gone ahead against massive opposition.
They went ahead with wafer thin majorities, which most want rid of now!
Tell that to the lonely Ditchling Road pensioners in yesterday's argus you******* Green ********!
God! The sooner we turn on these Greens and the ConDems they emulate so well, the better!
These schemes should be illegal without a 75% majority!
To put objectional schemes into effect, based on a 1-2% majority of a 23% turn out, is abusing the democratic process for your own means!
[quote][p][bold]We are the 99%[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]salty_pete[/bold] wrote: As with any "consultation" exercise, the council is legally obliged to do it, but can take no notice of the result if it so chooses. How do you think all other road schemes have gone ahead against massive opposition.[/p][/quote]They went ahead with wafer thin majorities, which most want rid of now! Tell that to the lonely Ditchling Road pensioners in yesterday's argus you******* Green ********! God! The sooner we turn on these Greens and the ConDems they emulate so well, the better![/p][/quote]These schemes should be illegal without a 75% majority! To put objectional schemes into effect, based on a 1-2% majority of a 23% turn out, is abusing the democratic process for your own means! We are the 99%
  • Score: 7

10:34am Tue 4 Mar 14

Pheasant pluckers son says...

Why do the council tax payers always get lured into a false sense of security when the council promises to go with the majority when changes to any services are proposed. For further reference although we live in a democracy someone has yet to inform the powers that be within the council. As far as they are concerned its a dictatorship. where if there is a chance of making money or off loading a non profitable service out to tender to a contractor then they will, regardless what any of these users of
building maintenance and the recently privatised 2 council run golf courses which has just resulted in a year long dispute with the management/ staff and unions resulting in strikes and job losses. Even the golf clubs are at their wits end as to how to get rid of the so called experts in charge.
Where there is any amount of parked vehicles during a certain time in a concentrated area (like train stations and shopping areas) then the council is going to impose parking restrictions to improve the traffic management OR MAKE MONEY. my parents live in portslade, for years the council have tried to implement parking permits because at certain times of the day there is an influx of traffic, normally twice da when it's school run. The rest of the day and esp at weekends the roads are empty.
Long live the democracy where the council with ask for your view then do what ever they want
Why do the council tax payers always get lured into a false sense of security when the council promises to go with the majority when changes to any services are proposed. For further reference although we live in a democracy someone has yet to inform the powers that be within the council. As far as they are concerned its a dictatorship. where if there is a chance of making money or off loading a non profitable service out to tender to a contractor then they will, regardless what any of these users of building maintenance and the recently privatised 2 council run golf courses which has just resulted in a year long dispute with the management/ staff and unions resulting in strikes and job losses. Even the golf clubs are at their wits end as to how to get rid of the so called experts in charge. Where there is any amount of parked vehicles during a certain time in a concentrated area (like train stations and shopping areas) then the council is going to impose parking restrictions to improve the traffic management OR MAKE MONEY. my parents live in portslade, for years the council have tried to implement parking permits because at certain times of the day there is an influx of traffic, normally twice da when it's school run. The rest of the day and esp at weekends the roads are empty. Long live the democracy where the council with ask for your view then do what ever they want Pheasant pluckers son
  • Score: 7

10:58am Tue 4 Mar 14

We are the 99% says...

And people thought that the Greens would be different?
Just as nasty as all the others!
Even charging to park in our countryside and parks!
Building on countryside in Hangleton!
Hypocrites! Hypocrites! Hypocrites! The lot of them and their supporters!
And people thought that the Greens would be different? Just as nasty as all the others! Even charging to park in our countryside and parks! Building on countryside in Hangleton! Hypocrites! Hypocrites! Hypocrites! The lot of them and their supporters! We are the 99%
  • Score: 14

11:40am Tue 4 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

When this gets blocked I wonder what revenge the council will carry out this time ? Remember what happened to Elm Grove residents when they voted against a CPZ !!!!!!
When this gets blocked I wonder what revenge the council will carry out this time ? Remember what happened to Elm Grove residents when they voted against a CPZ !!!!!! Fight_Back
  • Score: 10

12:31pm Tue 4 Mar 14

roystony says...

Eugenius wrote:
Main point is that the article only mentions a second consultation, the council's position is that the first one was split 50/50, and resulted in a concession to the scheme, being revised to Monday to Friday instead of all week. The formal traffic regulation order following the consultation received more objections but 60 of these arrived in one envelope.
Whats your problem jason?

Why are you so against the general public in every way!!

It only seems you care about your own bulls*it views!!
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Main point is that the article only mentions a second consultation, the council's position is that the first one was split 50/50, and resulted in a concession to the scheme, being revised to Monday to Friday instead of all week. The formal traffic regulation order following the consultation received more objections but 60 of these arrived in one envelope.[/p][/quote]Whats your problem jason? Why are you so against the general public in every way!! It only seems you care about your own bulls*it views!! roystony
  • Score: 7

12:38pm Tue 4 Mar 14

spa301 says...

Eugenius wrote:
Main point is that the article only mentions a second consultation, the council's position is that the first one was split 50/50, and resulted in a concession to the scheme, being revised to Monday to Friday instead of all week. The formal traffic regulation order following the consultation received more objections but 60 of these arrived in one envelope.
Ah Eugenius...........r
ead the article and wondered if you'd be here spouting your pathetic Green excuses.
You and your ilk are a disgrace. You are, as a movement, despised and ridiculed by the majority of this fine city. Next year the hard work begins to undo all that you've heaped upon us.
Shame on you all.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Main point is that the article only mentions a second consultation, the council's position is that the first one was split 50/50, and resulted in a concession to the scheme, being revised to Monday to Friday instead of all week. The formal traffic regulation order following the consultation received more objections but 60 of these arrived in one envelope.[/p][/quote]Ah Eugenius...........r ead the article and wondered if you'd be here spouting your pathetic Green excuses. You and your ilk are a disgrace. You are, as a movement, despised and ridiculed by the majority of this fine city. Next year the hard work begins to undo all that you've heaped upon us. Shame on you all. spa301
  • Score: 14

1:54pm Tue 4 Mar 14

X-Brightonian says...

When I lived in Tivoli Road about three years ago, the council sent a letter asking if residents wanted parking restrictions. They also threatened that if we did not agree to them then surrounding areas that accepted them would result in more cars parked in our area. They further stated they would not be doing another similar consultation for five years, as if to emphasise the threat.

Once residents responded with a resounding NO, another letter was sent out within months stating that the council was starting another consultation for our area. So, when they don't get what they want, just waste more money with another threa...'consultatio
n'.

So glad I got out before the 'Green' party that uses petrol powered leaf blowers over brooms and roadworks that block every major route in and out of the city to promote congestion charging, damage the city further.
When I lived in Tivoli Road about three years ago, the council sent a letter asking if residents wanted parking restrictions. They also threatened that if we did not agree to them then surrounding areas that accepted them would result in more cars parked in our area. They further stated they would not be doing another similar consultation for five years, as if to emphasise the threat. Once residents responded with a resounding NO, another letter was sent out within months stating that the council was starting another consultation for our area. So, when they don't get what they want, just waste more money with another threa...'consultatio n'. So glad I got out before the 'Green' party that uses petrol powered leaf blowers over brooms and roadworks that block every major route in and out of the city to promote congestion charging, damage the city further. X-Brightonian
  • Score: 13

4:39pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Quiterie says...

Eugenius wrote:
Main point is that the article only mentions a second consultation, the council's position is that the first one was split 50/50, and resulted in a concession to the scheme, being revised to Monday to Friday instead of all week. The formal traffic regulation order following the consultation received more objections but 60 of these arrived in one envelope.
"60 of these arrived in one envelope" ........ how Green is that!!!!! What an efficient use of resources. This should be applauded......
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Main point is that the article only mentions a second consultation, the council's position is that the first one was split 50/50, and resulted in a concession to the scheme, being revised to Monday to Friday instead of all week. The formal traffic regulation order following the consultation received more objections but 60 of these arrived in one envelope.[/p][/quote]"60 of these arrived in one envelope" ........ how Green is that!!!!! What an efficient use of resources. This should be applauded...... Quiterie
  • Score: 11

6:19pm Tue 4 Mar 14

We are the 99% says...

X-Brightonian wrote:
When I lived in Tivoli Road about three years ago, the council sent a letter asking if residents wanted parking restrictions. They also threatened that if we did not agree to them then surrounding areas that accepted them would result in more cars parked in our area. They further stated they would not be doing another similar consultation for five years, as if to emphasise the threat.

Once residents responded with a resounding NO, another letter was sent out within months stating that the council was starting another consultation for our area. So, when they don't get what they want, just waste more money with another threa...'consultatio

n'.

So glad I got out before the 'Green' party that uses petrol powered leaf blowers over brooms and roadworks that block every major route in and out of the city to promote congestion charging, damage the city further.
You should be applauded!
Pity most people don't show the same backbone!
[quote][p][bold]X-Brightonian[/bold] wrote: When I lived in Tivoli Road about three years ago, the council sent a letter asking if residents wanted parking restrictions. They also threatened that if we did not agree to them then surrounding areas that accepted them would result in more cars parked in our area. They further stated they would not be doing another similar consultation for five years, as if to emphasise the threat. Once residents responded with a resounding NO, another letter was sent out within months stating that the council was starting another consultation for our area. So, when they don't get what they want, just waste more money with another threa...'consultatio n'. So glad I got out before the 'Green' party that uses petrol powered leaf blowers over brooms and roadworks that block every major route in and out of the city to promote congestion charging, damage the city further.[/p][/quote]You should be applauded! Pity most people don't show the same backbone! We are the 99%
  • Score: 4

12:15am Wed 5 Mar 14

Eugenius says...

Quiterie wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Main point is that the article only mentions a second consultation, the council's position is that the first one was split 50/50, and resulted in a concession to the scheme, being revised to Monday to Friday instead of all week. The formal traffic regulation order following the consultation received more objections but 60 of these arrived in one envelope.
"60 of these arrived in one envelope" ........ how Green is that!!!!! What an efficient use of resources. This should be applauded......
Fair point : )
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Main point is that the article only mentions a second consultation, the council's position is that the first one was split 50/50, and resulted in a concession to the scheme, being revised to Monday to Friday instead of all week. The formal traffic regulation order following the consultation received more objections but 60 of these arrived in one envelope.[/p][/quote]"60 of these arrived in one envelope" ........ how Green is that!!!!! What an efficient use of resources. This should be applauded......[/p][/quote]Fair point : ) Eugenius
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree