Controversial Preston Park parking scheme gets go ahead

Tivoli Crescent is now part of a neighbouring residents parking scheme, which residents believe has caused more congestion in their streets

Tivoli Crescent is now part of a neighbouring residents parking scheme, which residents believe has caused more congestion in their streets

First published in News
Last updated
by , local government reporter

Councillors have agreed to introduce parking restrictions in the Preston Park area of Brighton.

In 2007 residents in the area voted to be excluded from the proposed Zone A restrictions.

Since then the inclusion of Tivoli Crescent into a resident parking scheme has caused extra parking pressure on surrounding roads and in November it was agreed to consult with residents again.

Following a public consultation those residents for and against were split 50/50.

Have your say - do you think the scheme is a good idea?

Some people claimed there were parking problems caused by non-residents parking in the streets while others claimed the scheme was a tax on homeowners.

But at a meeting of Brighton and Hove City Council's transport committee last night councillors agreed to introduce residents’ parking on weekdays from 9am to 8pm with free parking remaining at the weekend.

The scheme would also include adding double yellow lines on Dyke Road.

Speaking at the meeting, several councillors said the decision to move forward with the scheme had taken future parking pressures into account.

Gill Mitchell, Labour’s transport spokeswoman, said: “On balance we will be supporting these recommendations. We think the proposed scheme is representative of the views received from residents in terms of weekend parking.”

Coun Davey added: “Parking is always difficult and it’s impossible to please everyone. There’s always going to be an impact when a scheme like this goes in.”

Councillors also requested if tariffs at Preston station could be looked at as another way of dealing with parking problems.

Resident Helen Jones welcomed the decision and said she had been pressing the council “for years” for action.

She said: “They’ve made a great decision.”

Before the meeting she said it was only a matter of time “before someone is killed” if no changes were made.

She added: “I literally feel that every time I pull out of my drive way onto Dyke Road that I am taking a risk with my life and that of my two little boys – it is a really horrible feeling.

“And I know that all my neighbours feel exactly the same.”

Fellow resident James May has welcomed the council’s intervention. He said: “This, I believe, will be a lasting solution once it is implemented.”

The inclusion of Tivoli Crescent North into an existing parking zone scheme is itself the subject of a legal challenge. 

Lawyers say the council's decision to put that road, as well as Maldon Road, Matlock Road and Tivoli Road, into the Preston Park Station zone were undemocratic as a majority of residents opposed the move. 

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:53am Wed 5 Mar 14

Dr Wombleface says...

This is all very well but what about the badgers? If they don't have equal rights to move raspberries out of storage of a Tuesday afternoon, then how can anyone expect spatulas to grow under hatstand plants? Personally I hope the Queen caves in on this and allows Noel Edmonds to have the final say, or we all run the risk of living in egg boxes.
This is all very well but what about the badgers? If they don't have equal rights to move raspberries out of storage of a Tuesday afternoon, then how can anyone expect spatulas to grow under hatstand plants? Personally I hope the Queen caves in on this and allows Noel Edmonds to have the final say, or we all run the risk of living in egg boxes. Dr Wombleface
  • Score: 6

10:55am Wed 5 Mar 14

Patsyr says...

Dr Wombleface wrote:
This is all very well but what about the badgers? If they don't have equal rights to move raspberries out of storage of a Tuesday afternoon, then how can anyone expect spatulas to grow under hatstand plants? Personally I hope the Queen caves in on this and allows Noel Edmonds to have the final say, or we all run the risk of living in egg boxes.
What a stupid piece, and not even remotely funny - I imagine it was meant to be. How about giving you opinion on the subject? No ideas? Then better to say nothing.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Wombleface[/bold] wrote: This is all very well but what about the badgers? If they don't have equal rights to move raspberries out of storage of a Tuesday afternoon, then how can anyone expect spatulas to grow under hatstand plants? Personally I hope the Queen caves in on this and allows Noel Edmonds to have the final say, or we all run the risk of living in egg boxes.[/p][/quote]What a stupid piece, and not even remotely funny - I imagine it was meant to be. How about giving you opinion on the subject? No ideas? Then better to say nothing. Patsyr
  • Score: -10

11:35am Wed 5 Mar 14

Dr Wombleface says...

Patsyr wrote:
Dr Wombleface wrote:
This is all very well but what about the badgers? If they don't have equal rights to move raspberries out of storage of a Tuesday afternoon, then how can anyone expect spatulas to grow under hatstand plants? Personally I hope the Queen caves in on this and allows Noel Edmonds to have the final say, or we all run the risk of living in egg boxes.
What a stupid piece, and not even remotely funny - I imagine it was meant to be. How about giving you opinion on the subject? No ideas? Then better to say nothing.
I'm sorry for your loss Mr Fothergill and appreciate the impact this has on global warming, but as my kumquat jelly hasn't been returned from the dry cleaners yet, I'm unable to assist with the gerbils until late August. How about a twerking competition instead?
[quote][p][bold]Patsyr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Wombleface[/bold] wrote: This is all very well but what about the badgers? If they don't have equal rights to move raspberries out of storage of a Tuesday afternoon, then how can anyone expect spatulas to grow under hatstand plants? Personally I hope the Queen caves in on this and allows Noel Edmonds to have the final say, or we all run the risk of living in egg boxes.[/p][/quote]What a stupid piece, and not even remotely funny - I imagine it was meant to be. How about giving you opinion on the subject? No ideas? Then better to say nothing.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry for your loss Mr Fothergill and appreciate the impact this has on global warming, but as my kumquat jelly hasn't been returned from the dry cleaners yet, I'm unable to assist with the gerbils until late August. How about a twerking competition instead? Dr Wombleface
  • Score: 10

11:54am Wed 5 Mar 14

We are the 99% says...

The trouble with people with money, is that they think they're better than the rest of us?
They're not!
They just have more money!
But there are more of us than them! 10 to 1!
Just you remember that when the inevitable explosion happens!
The trouble with people with money, is that they think they're better than the rest of us? They're not! They just have more money! But there are more of us than them! 10 to 1! Just you remember that when the inevitable explosion happens! We are the 99%
  • Score: -2

12:22pm Wed 5 Mar 14

wippasnapper says...

Why do residents of any community have to pay for parking outside there own homes it is a locale authority tax on homeowners/residents of any community it is also another way for locale authority’s to gain revenue wile also charging non residents to park in the community but all authority’s right across Brittan use the excuse it is a way of controlling problem parking in a community’s but permit parking should be free to homeowners and residents living within the community affected by parking restrictions so Gill Mitchell, Labour’s transport spokeswoman, got it wrong when she stated “On balance we will be supporting these recommendations”.
Why do residents of any community have to pay for parking outside there own homes it is a locale authority tax on homeowners/residents of any community it is also another way for locale authority’s to gain revenue wile also charging non residents to park in the community but all authority’s right across Brittan use the excuse it is a way of controlling problem parking in a community’s but permit parking should be free to homeowners and residents living within the community affected by parking restrictions so Gill Mitchell, Labour’s transport spokeswoman, got it wrong when she stated “On balance we will be supporting these recommendations”. wippasnapper
  • Score: 11

1:01pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Supporter of Democracy says...

Let’s take a step back and look at the facts:

Clause 2 of the Council’s published policy on implementation of new parking schemes states: ‘A new area will be recommended for funding provided there is a majority of respondents of that area in favour of such a scheme following a public consultation.’

The vote following the initial consultation, and as published in the Council’s own report, shows that the vote from ‘respondents of that area’ was 83 against, 78 for.

Therefore the Council didn’t have a majority. The Council’s policy document does not state anywhere that the council may over-ride the vote, for any reason.

So not only are they in breach of their own published policy, but they are spending taxpayers money where they do not have the necessary authority to do so.

A truly strange application of democracy for you, but of course, if they did that then this would set back their underlying agenda to turn the whole of Brighton into a massive car park, and reap the revenues that such a car park would bring.

I suspect the existing Ward Councillors, who voted against the wishes of the majority of their constituents from this area, might just get a lesson in how democracy actually works in 2015 at the next Council Elections.
Let’s take a step back and look at the facts: Clause 2 of the Council’s published policy on implementation of new parking schemes states: ‘A new area will be recommended for funding provided there is a majority of respondents of that area in favour of such a scheme following a public consultation.’ The vote following the initial consultation, and as published in the Council’s own report, shows that the vote from ‘respondents of that area’ was 83 against, 78 for. Therefore the Council didn’t have a majority. The Council’s policy document does not state anywhere that the council may over-ride the vote, for any reason. So not only are they in breach of their own published policy, but they are spending taxpayers money where they do not have the necessary authority to do so. A truly strange application of democracy for you, but of course, if they did that then this would set back their underlying agenda to turn the whole of Brighton into a massive car park, and reap the revenues that such a car park would bring. I suspect the existing Ward Councillors, who voted against the wishes of the majority of their constituents from this area, might just get a lesson in how democracy actually works in 2015 at the next Council Elections. Supporter of Democracy
  • Score: 11

2:17pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Bill in Hanover says...

Dr Wombleface wrote:
This is all very well but what about the badgers? If they don't have equal rights to move raspberries out of storage of a Tuesday afternoon, then how can anyone expect spatulas to grow under hatstand plants? Personally I hope the Queen caves in on this and allows Noel Edmonds to have the final say, or we all run the risk of living in egg boxes.
It is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought an idiot than to open it and be proved one.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Wombleface[/bold] wrote: This is all very well but what about the badgers? If they don't have equal rights to move raspberries out of storage of a Tuesday afternoon, then how can anyone expect spatulas to grow under hatstand plants? Personally I hope the Queen caves in on this and allows Noel Edmonds to have the final say, or we all run the risk of living in egg boxes.[/p][/quote]It is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought an idiot than to open it and be proved one. Bill in Hanover
  • Score: -3

2:22pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Bill in Hanover says...

Supporter of Democracy wrote:
Let’s take a step back and look at the facts:

Clause 2 of the Council’s published policy on implementation of new parking schemes states: ‘A new area will be recommended for funding provided there is a majority of respondents of that area in favour of such a scheme following a public consultation.’

The vote following the initial consultation, and as published in the Council’s own report, shows that the vote from ‘respondents of that area’ was 83 against, 78 for.

Therefore the Council didn’t have a majority. The Council’s policy document does not state anywhere that the council may over-ride the vote, for any reason.

So not only are they in breach of their own published policy, but they are spending taxpayers money where they do not have the necessary authority to do so.

A truly strange application of democracy for you, but of course, if they did that then this would set back their underlying agenda to turn the whole of Brighton into a massive car park, and reap the revenues that such a car park would bring.

I suspect the existing Ward Councillors, who voted against the wishes of the majority of their constituents from this area, might just get a lesson in how democracy actually works in 2015 at the next Council Elections.
I lve just off Elm Grove and just over a year ago we were consulted about resident's parking, a majority of people were against it and the Council had to back down, although they have now begun to ticket people parked on Elm Grove, even though the consultation asked about pavement parking and there was no objection. Yesterday I received some junk mail through the door, it was a Green Party newsletter for the area and yet again they are trying to implement parking restrictions in the area. They will not be satisfied until every area (although I notice they are scared to implement the restrictions in Council estates) is car free. Roll on 2015 when Brighton becomes a 'Green Free area'
[quote][p][bold]Supporter of Democracy[/bold] wrote: Let’s take a step back and look at the facts: Clause 2 of the Council’s published policy on implementation of new parking schemes states: ‘A new area will be recommended for funding provided there is a majority of respondents of that area in favour of such a scheme following a public consultation.’ The vote following the initial consultation, and as published in the Council’s own report, shows that the vote from ‘respondents of that area’ was 83 against, 78 for. Therefore the Council didn’t have a majority. The Council’s policy document does not state anywhere that the council may over-ride the vote, for any reason. So not only are they in breach of their own published policy, but they are spending taxpayers money where they do not have the necessary authority to do so. A truly strange application of democracy for you, but of course, if they did that then this would set back their underlying agenda to turn the whole of Brighton into a massive car park, and reap the revenues that such a car park would bring. I suspect the existing Ward Councillors, who voted against the wishes of the majority of their constituents from this area, might just get a lesson in how democracy actually works in 2015 at the next Council Elections.[/p][/quote]I lve just off Elm Grove and just over a year ago we were consulted about resident's parking, a majority of people were against it and the Council had to back down, although they have now begun to ticket people parked on Elm Grove, even though the consultation asked about pavement parking and there was no objection. Yesterday I received some junk mail through the door, it was a Green Party newsletter for the area and yet again they are trying to implement parking restrictions in the area. They will not be satisfied until every area (although I notice they are scared to implement the restrictions in Council estates) is car free. Roll on 2015 when Brighton becomes a 'Green Free area' Bill in Hanover
  • Score: 14

4:39pm Wed 5 Mar 14

roystony says...

Patsyr wrote:
Dr Wombleface wrote:
This is all very well but what about the badgers? If they don't have equal rights to move raspberries out of storage of a Tuesday afternoon, then how can anyone expect spatulas to grow under hatstand plants? Personally I hope the Queen caves in on this and allows Noel Edmonds to have the final say, or we all run the risk of living in egg boxes.
What a stupid piece, and not even remotely funny - I imagine it was meant to be. How about giving you opinion on the subject? No ideas? Then better to say nothing.
Why take anything the greens do seriously? They don't listen to the majority.

They are a JOKE.
[quote][p][bold]Patsyr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Wombleface[/bold] wrote: This is all very well but what about the badgers? If they don't have equal rights to move raspberries out of storage of a Tuesday afternoon, then how can anyone expect spatulas to grow under hatstand plants? Personally I hope the Queen caves in on this and allows Noel Edmonds to have the final say, or we all run the risk of living in egg boxes.[/p][/quote]What a stupid piece, and not even remotely funny - I imagine it was meant to be. How about giving you opinion on the subject? No ideas? Then better to say nothing.[/p][/quote]Why take anything the greens do seriously? They don't listen to the majority. They are a JOKE. roystony
  • Score: 6

6:21pm Wed 5 Mar 14

sabbat36 says...

wippasnapper wrote:
Why do residents of any community have to pay for parking outside there own homes it is a locale authority tax on homeowners/residents of any community it is also another way for locale authority’s to gain revenue wile also charging non residents to park in the community but all authority’s right across Brittan use the excuse it is a way of controlling problem parking in a community’s but permit parking should be free to homeowners and residents living within the community affected by parking restrictions so Gill Mitchell, Labour’s transport spokeswoman, got it wrong when she stated “On balance we will be supporting these recommendations”.
Agree sort of. have the restrictions, but perhaps £20 a year for admin. then give illegal parkers,brighton and hove -hell -instant fines and clamping. and give tradesman better permits.
[quote][p][bold]wippasnapper[/bold] wrote: Why do residents of any community have to pay for parking outside there own homes it is a locale authority tax on homeowners/residents of any community it is also another way for locale authority’s to gain revenue wile also charging non residents to park in the community but all authority’s right across Brittan use the excuse it is a way of controlling problem parking in a community’s but permit parking should be free to homeowners and residents living within the community affected by parking restrictions so Gill Mitchell, Labour’s transport spokeswoman, got it wrong when she stated “On balance we will be supporting these recommendations”.[/p][/quote]Agree sort of. have the restrictions, but perhaps £20 a year for admin. then give illegal parkers,brighton and hove -hell -instant fines and clamping. and give tradesman better permits. sabbat36
  • Score: 2

6:49pm Wed 5 Mar 14

PorkyChopper says...

Dr Wombleface wrote:
This is all very well but what about the badgers? If they don't have equal rights to move raspberries out of storage of a Tuesday afternoon, then how can anyone expect spatulas to grow under hatstand plants? Personally I hope the Queen caves in on this and allows Noel Edmonds to have the final say, or we all run the risk of living in egg boxes.
That's easy for you to say. I prefer spoons.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Wombleface[/bold] wrote: This is all very well but what about the badgers? If they don't have equal rights to move raspberries out of storage of a Tuesday afternoon, then how can anyone expect spatulas to grow under hatstand plants? Personally I hope the Queen caves in on this and allows Noel Edmonds to have the final say, or we all run the risk of living in egg boxes.[/p][/quote]That's easy for you to say. I prefer spoons. PorkyChopper
  • Score: 5

6:52pm Wed 5 Mar 14

PorkyChopper says...

Bill in Hanover wrote:
Dr Wombleface wrote:
This is all very well but what about the badgers? If they don't have equal rights to move raspberries out of storage of a Tuesday afternoon, then how can anyone expect spatulas to grow under hatstand plants? Personally I hope the Queen caves in on this and allows Noel Edmonds to have the final say, or we all run the risk of living in egg boxes.
It is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought an idiot than to open it and be proved one.
Seeing as Dr Wombleface hasn't opened his mouth, but used his paws to type words on a computer screen, who is the idiot here?
[quote][p][bold]Bill in Hanover[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Wombleface[/bold] wrote: This is all very well but what about the badgers? If they don't have equal rights to move raspberries out of storage of a Tuesday afternoon, then how can anyone expect spatulas to grow under hatstand plants? Personally I hope the Queen caves in on this and allows Noel Edmonds to have the final say, or we all run the risk of living in egg boxes.[/p][/quote]It is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought an idiot than to open it and be proved one.[/p][/quote]Seeing as Dr Wombleface hasn't opened his mouth, but used his paws to type words on a computer screen, who is the idiot here? PorkyChopper
  • Score: 5

7:07pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ARMANA says...

Dr Wombleface wrote:
Patsyr wrote:
Dr Wombleface wrote:
This is all very well but what about the badgers? If they don't have equal rights to move raspberries out of storage of a Tuesday afternoon, then how can anyone expect spatulas to grow under hatstand plants? Personally I hope the Queen caves in on this and allows Noel Edmonds to have the final say, or we all run the risk of living in egg boxes.
What a stupid piece, and not even remotely funny - I imagine it was meant to be. How about giving you opinion on the subject? No ideas? Then better to say nothing.
I'm sorry for your loss Mr Fothergill and appreciate the impact this has on global warming, but as my kumquat jelly hasn't been returned from the dry cleaners yet, I'm unable to assist with the gerbils until late August. How about a twerking competition instead?
You keep him talking, Il throw a net over him , !!
[quote][p][bold]Dr Wombleface[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Patsyr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Wombleface[/bold] wrote: This is all very well but what about the badgers? If they don't have equal rights to move raspberries out of storage of a Tuesday afternoon, then how can anyone expect spatulas to grow under hatstand plants? Personally I hope the Queen caves in on this and allows Noel Edmonds to have the final say, or we all run the risk of living in egg boxes.[/p][/quote]What a stupid piece, and not even remotely funny - I imagine it was meant to be. How about giving you opinion on the subject? No ideas? Then better to say nothing.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry for your loss Mr Fothergill and appreciate the impact this has on global warming, but as my kumquat jelly hasn't been returned from the dry cleaners yet, I'm unable to assist with the gerbils until late August. How about a twerking competition instead?[/p][/quote]You keep him talking, Il throw a net over him , !! ARMANA
  • Score: 6

10:27pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ARMANA says...

Remember, when you vote, Labour are supporting this,
Remember, when you vote, Labour are supporting this, ARMANA
  • Score: 6

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