Elmbridge Borough Council is seeking our views on their vision for the next five years, and the deadline is Wednesday 20th September. Here’s what they say
Broadwater Path — a picturesque walk along the edge of Broadwater lake — is at long last becoming a properly surfaced reality. The path runs through the tranquil Green Belt countryside between Grenside Road, Weybridge and Cowey Sale (Walton Bridge). Work to lay the crushed stone surface started this month, and should be completed by mid September.
At the time of writing, nearly half the length has already been surfaced, and it looks superb — a good solid surface where before there was tangled undergrowth and mud. It will be a wonderful lasting asset for our community.
The surfacing is possible thanks to Community Infrastructure Levy funding secured from Elmbridge Borough Council.
The formal dedication of the public footpath by Surrey County Council was complete by the start of this year, after over 15 years of local effort to make it happen.
Broadwater Path is more than a walk though beautiful scenery — the dedication of the public footpath opens the way for public funding to help conserve the historic Broadwater lake, which has been silting up badly in recent years. We can now look forward with greater confidence to this priceless local feature being enjoyed by future generations.
The long awaited Weybridge Parking Review decision seems to have been delayed again, and there is no reliable information available about when Surrey County Council will complete the review. But there is now a parallel local initiative to look at the problem.
Residents will recall that the draft SCC Weybridge Parking Review proposals caused a lot of concern locally, so much so that they were sent back for further work. SCC received hundreds of comments, and it seems to be taking a very long time to consider these. We hear that a Surrey County Council meeting to discuss local roads this month was cancelled at short notice. No reason was given, but it coincides with a dire financial position (£120 million shortfall) and budget uncertainty. There are concerns locally that the SCC Weybridge Strategic Parking Review may be cut back or put on hold indefinitely.
Meanwhile the Weybridgetown Business Group and Weybridge Society are collaborating to take a much needed longer term strategic look at Weybridge parking needs and possibilities. You can download a press release announcing the Weybridge Parking Project 2017_18 here.
As part of that voluntary local activity, they are seeking the views of local residents groups.
PPDRA input submitted in January 2016 to the SCC Weybridge Strategic Parking Review is shown below.
Do you think that the comments below are a relevant and fair reflection of Weybridge parking needs in 2017? If you live, work or shop in Weybridge, or are a concerned visitor, please let us know your thoughts.
PPDRA submission to SCC Weybridge Parking Review
Portmore Park & District Residents Association (PPDRA) recognises that Weybridge needs adequate parking for residents, shoppers, visitors and workers, if our town is to thrive. We also know that this is a difficult balance to achieve.
The PPDRA committee broadly welcomes the principle of reducing parking restrictions to help increase capacity, where that is possible and desirable, so long as
- a good balance of priorities is achieved (especially the balance between parking for residents, shoppers and workers)
- safety is kept as a prime consideration.
We welcome the principle of consulting residents of individual roads about the specific needs of their road, especially where residents are being displaced from limited parking spaces in their own road.
PPDRA believes there is a very strong need for more public off-street parking, priced more affordably, and convenient for Weybridge town centre. This is a view which has been widely expressed by local residents in our community meetings and surveys. Cheap or free short stay parking in particular could help the town centre thrive. Affordable long stay off-street parking is also much needed, within reasonable walking distance.
We recognise that allowing on-street parking can have positive outcomes beyond a simple increase in parking capacity, especially in potential rat runs. Traffic speeds in our local residential roads are a major issue. Parked cars can be a positive natural form of traffic calming: for example, Portmore Park Road and Thames Street are unclassified residential roads which without parked cars might become high speed rat runs for through traffic.
Thames Street and Portmore Park Road include schools and a church, which have different parking needs and impacts on the community, meriting additional thought about how best to enable the required mainly short stay parking nearby. PPDRA has met with St George’s Junior School 3 times a year since 2002, liaising on issues including how best to manage school run drop off and pick up parking. We have also discussed parking issues with representatives of Christ The Prince of Peace church and other local groups. We note that Thames Street has recently faced issues of excessive obstruction caused by inconsiderate parking at the upper end between the junction with Grotto Road and Monument Green.
The most serious parking issues locally arise close to Weybridge High Street. The Portmore Park and District area of north Weybridge has a fair density of mainly Victorian homes with no off-street parking. The lack of private off-street parking is a particular issue in roads adjacent to the High Street, where shoppers and town centre workers look to park their cars. The result has been that residents of these roads, returning from a school run or shopping journey, risk finding nowhere to park within walking distance of their home. Hence many living in these roads favour residents’ parking schemes.
PPDRA has long supported the principle that Surrey County Council should consult residents of individual roads about specific residents’ parking schemes for their road.
The PPDRA committee also recognises the need to permit short term shopper and visitor parking in such roads, with a good level of churn, so long as it allows for the needed level of daytime residents’ parking. It is not good to see ‘residents only’ parking zones with few parked cars in daytime, when shoppers can find nowhere to park and when local shops are in need of footfall.
Further from the High Street, many homes in Portmore Park & District have private off-street parking. For roads where there is no issue of residents being displaced from essential on-street parking, as a general principle the majority of the PPDRA committee would favour only minimal restrictions, simply where safety issues demand double yellow lines on dangerous corners. However, we appreciate that there is concern among residents in some roads (particularly Wey Road and Round Oak Road) about potential displacement of parking into their roads if CPZs are introduced elsewhere, and we feel this issue needs careful consideration by Surrey.
We are aware of specific issues in Radnor and Glencoe Roads where there is a very high density of houses and almost no off-street parking, and Church Walk which has very limited parking. Some residents of these and other roads rely on their parking being able to overflow into on-street parking in Portmore Park Road.
PPDRA would be happy to contribute further on any way possible to help support Surrey County Council (and Elmbridge Borough Council) in finding ways to achieve adequate parking for Weybridge residents, shoppers, visitors and workers.
Additional PPDRA comments to Councillors in July 2016, following the release of draft recommendations
- The review tries to address some important parking issues, and includes consultation with residents of the most immediately affected roads – particularly those close to the High Street, with limited private off-street parking, such as Dorchester Road (where residents rely on being able to park on-street).
- It proposes CPZ changes/extension based on the responses of residents of those roads.
- It proposes something to help control early evening on-street parking near the town centre (by extending restrictions to 8pm).
- It tries to do something to increase daytime short-stay shopper parking (by allowing it in some sections of CPZ roads).
- It seeks to address known safety issues around various junctions.
- The review fails to take a strategic view of Weybridge parking needs, and on-street vs off-street capacity.
- It particularly fails to address the issue of public off-street parking shortage in Weybridge.
- The review ignores roads east of Thames Street (e.g. Grenside Rd, Grotto Road, West Palace Gardens, Old Palace Road), and in particular does not address the issues of Grenside Road parking. (Note that St George’s Junior School staff park 30 or more cars on local roads on school days).
- It does not assess the impact of displacement parking from CPZs. Some residents are concerned about displacement parking from new CPZs. PPDRA is aware of considerable disquiet from Round Oak Road & Wey Road, although PPDRA is particularly concerned about displacement into roads where there is limited private off-street parking, where displacement parking leaves residents nowhere to park.
- It is not effective enough in increasing short-stay shopper daytime parking capacity (e.g. Oakdale Road daytime spaces count), and such spaces are poorly signed.
- It does nothing at all to assist affordable long-stay worker parking.
On Sunday 5 March, a thousand runners will take to the roads of Weybridge. The run is receiving widespread support locally as a community sporting event. The Weybridge 10K run starts at 9am and will follow a circular route taking in Walton Lane, Desborough Island, Cowey Sale, Oatlands Drive, Monument Hill, Baker Street, High Street and Thames Street.
There are plans for an ‘Race village’ on the field by the Weybridge Health Club, with stalls including a Hog Roast, and a Big Red Bus Bar.
You can find out more at the Weybridge 10K website.
Note that Baker Street, High Street and Thames Street, Walton Lane and Desborough Island will be closed to road traffic for the morning, between 7:30am and midday.
Flood prevention was the main topic of an informative meeting on 19 December in Walton Lane, Weybridge, between representatives of the Environment Agency River Thames Scheme and local residents. We learned more about the status of work to model flood flows and levels, and the latest thinking on options for carrying excess water around Desborough Island.
The current preferred option is to widen Desborough Channel by cutting back the north bank (the Desborough Island side of the channel), which would avoid displacing the nationally important amenity of the Thames Path, which runs along the south bank.
The north bank is overgrown with self-seeded trees, a number of which which are reaching the end of their natural life, and in recent years several have been blown down in storms, sometimes partly obstructing the channel. (UPDATE March 2017: The picture below shows a recently blown down poplar, and scrubby trees growing into the channel.)
Widening the north bank would enable this edge of Desborough island, which has been prone to fly tipping, to be made into an appealing riverside nature amenity. It seems there is a balance to be struck in the decision however, with a few residents of Spelthorne wanting the south bank cut back.
Some Walton Lane residents meanwhile are pressing for the excess river flows to be diverted around the Spelthorne side of Desborough Island, by relocating the direction of the proposed Flood Channel 3 discharge, and dredging around the north of Desborough Island.
The current plans are to discharge the water back into the Thames by D’Oyly Carte Island, reentering the Thames more or less at right angles to the flow of the main river. Miles Macleod asked if the effects of the momentum of this 150 cubic metres per second flow entering the main stream at right angles had been taken into account (as the momentum of this flow would logically push up the water level against the south bank just before the narrow first Desborough bridge). It seems this has not yet been looked at in the 1D modelling, but the more detailed 2D flow and level modelling will seek to incorporate it.
Headlines from the meeting:
- Bottom line of the RTS is that it should cause no increase in risk anywhere
- At the top of Desborough current modelling shows a 0.04 to 0.11 metre reduction in flood levels
- Modelling has been calibrated using data from six real flood events
- Calibration of the model includes past flows from all sources (fluvial and groundwater)
- Target accuracy is +/- 0.15 metres (i.e. it might not actually reduce levels at Desborough…)
- The river bed beneath the Desborough bridges will be lowered by around 2 metres to accommodate extra flow
- Current preferred option for increasing flow around Desborough is to cut back the north bank of the Cut
We had a number of questions for which immediate answers were not available, and the EA team have very helpfully now supplied these. Some key points are that:
- The total volume of water occupying the floodplain in a 1 in 20 year flood is equivalent to about six hours flow of the Thames
- Extra total flow downstream of the RTS relief channels caused by that water draining from the floodplain is modelled at about 5-10 cubic metres per second (cumecs) in a total river flow of 500 cumecs
- More water currently flows around the north of Desborough Island around the old river loop than flows down Desborough Cut; this position will be reversed by the changes proposed in the RTS
- The width of the channel under the first Desborough bridge below water level is 23.2 metres (and this will not be increased); the modelling takes this into account
Once again, we are extremely grateful to the River Thames Scheme team for the time and effort they are putting into keeping our local community consulted and informed.
UPDATE: North bank of the Desborough Cut, viewed from the Thames Path on the south bank in February 2017. Note the poplar blown over in a recent storm, and various trees growing out into the channel obstructing flow.
Thames Lock in the Wey Navigation has a new pair of lock gates, and residents were give a rare opportunity to inspect them from inside the lock at the end of November, on completion of the work. Large numbers of interested visitors were treated to tours by guides with a deep knowledge of the Wey Navigation history, construction and maintenance.
The wooden lock gates last about twenty years, and this year it was the turn of the lower gates to be renewed. Temporary barriers were installed immediately upstream and downstream of the lock, and the water pumped out. The huge gates are held in their hinges by gravity, so changing the gates was a matter of hoisting out the old and lowering the new custom-built gates into place.
This empty lock gave a rare chance to view the parts of Thames Lock that are normally under water. The upper gates are smaller, as they sit on top of the step to the higher level of the navigation.
The floor of the lock was originally wood — which is preserved by being under water with very little access to oxygen — but was replaced by concrete some time ago. The step beneath the upper gates is still made of wood, and includes original Elm baulks which have survived hundreds of years since the navigation was constructed.
Lock gates suffer decay because they are exposed to air and water. The effects can be seen in the old lower gates, pictured here waiting to be taken away by barge. One can only wonder how many boats have those gates have helped pass up and down the Wey Navigation.
Local residents are invited to our Portmore Park & District community event on 5 October, from 7:30 pm in the St Charles Borromeo School Hall, Portmore Way.
Keep in touch with what’s happening locally
- Meet fellow residents and local councillors
- Find out about things that affect our local community
- Share your views
The evening will have ample opportunity for asking questions and raising concerns. It will incorporate (briefly) the PPDRA AGM.
County Councillor Ramon Gray, and Elmbridge Borough Councillors Andrew Davis, Michael Freeman and Andy Muddyman plan to be there.
There will be opportunities to learn more about — and give your views on — topics including
- Broadwater Path update
- Weybridge Parking Review
- River Thames Scheme flood relief
- Community Resilience
- Weybridge Point riverside consultation
- Weybridge town centre
- town planning and
- other local matters.
Is there a local topic you would like us to include?
Please do let us know: email contactus @ portmore.org.uk
7:30 Chat and light refreshments
8:00 Hear about and discuss local matters as a whole group
9:00 Brief AGM formalities, followed by
discussion in smaller groups of topics of most interest to people
We hope to see you there!
Wouldn’t it be lovely to have a riverside we can be proud of? Many Weybridge residents recall how attractive our local stretch of Thames riverside was, up until autumn 2009 (see our main picture). A well-tended riverbank where people could sit on the grass in the sunshine or in the shade of a tree, and enjoy fine views and tranquility.
Then the Environment Agency cut down the trees and fenced off this prime stretch, between Weybridge Ladies ARC and the foot ferry, in the course of works to install concrete moorings. They left the temporary fence in place and the riverbank untended for five years, despite local protests. It looked like this in 2014.
PPDRA along with local residents pressed for access to the riverbank to be restored and the brambles removed…
…and the mesh fence was eventually removed, and the brambles that had grown up behind it were strimmed.
But the riverbank has subsequently been left untended, and has again become an unattractive bramble patch. Below is a photo of the same stretch of riverside as in our main picture, showing how it looks in September 2016: overgrown, with brambles and scrubby growth obstructing access and views.
This is the first length of riverside seen by people joining the Thames Path at Weybridge. It is a significant local amenity. Surely it deserves some TLC?
We want to see this important piece of riverside getting the care it deserves, with a proper mowing regime to maintain it as a grassy riverbank people can enjoy. Together with the Weybridge Society, we are lobbying councillors to bring back regular mowing of the grass along this prime stretch of riverbank, to give residents something they can be proud of once more.
The latest River Thames Scheme (RTS) developments and local flood prevention measures – including a possible temporary local flood barrier – were top of the agenda when Walton Lane residents (plus PPDRA Chair Miles Macleod) met with representatives of the Environment Agency and the RTS modelling team on 1 August 2016.
Costs and Benefits of the RTS
We were told that the projected costs of the River Thames Scheme at current values have risen to £476 million, and of that around £250 million has been promised so far (£212m from the Government, £36m from partners). The scheme would have significant benefits in terms of flood relief for residents between Datchet and Shepperton.
The RTS aim for residents of Weybridge — where the proposed Flood Relief Channel 3 would discharge — is that the scheme must not cause any projected increase in local river levels.
In parallel, the Environment Agency (EA) is looking actively at what can be done to mitigate local flood risk in Weybridge.
RTS flows and levels – 1D modelling
While the RTS 2D model (which should give more accurate modelling) is still undergoing peer review, we saw some highly relevant outputs of the latest 1D modelling of local flows and levels in different states of flood, modelled without the proposed Flood Relief Channel 3 in place. The modelling projected local flood levels on land around Walton Lane which very largely coincided with past local experience of actual flood levels. This reflects well on the quality of the modelling work.
Once the 2D model is available, probably by the end of September, it will be run to simulate flows and levels with Flood Relief Channel 3 in place. Then we will be able to get a better indication of the anticipated local impact of that proposed new channel (with its 150 cubic metres per second capacity) discharging at Weybridge
Models of Desborough alternatives
Meanwhile, on 1 August, we were shown the latest 1D modelling of alternative possibilities for works on Desborough Cut or around Desborough Island.
Five possibilities were presented, each of which has now been 1D modelled:
- Widening Desborough Cut by 3 metres on the south bank
- Widening Desborough Cut by 3 metres on the north bank
- Dredging Desborough Cut
- Dredging downstream of Desborough Cut
- Creating ‘Doug’s Channel’ across Point Meadow and dredging north of Desborough Island
All five possibilities would succeed in avoiding an increase in river levels locally at Weybridge, according to the latest 1D modelling. Choices will be made later — we are told this will be after 2D modelling and after further consultation — using a range of criteria, and not simply on up front cost.
Option 5 would cost considerably more than others, as it would involve a huge amount of excavating and dredging. The 1D modelling suggests it would require, as well as cutting a channel across Point Meadow, the dredging of 35000 cubic metres of riverbed (20m wide and 2.2km long) to prevent the upstream RTS works increasing flood risk locally. This option would have a neutral effect north and east of Desborough Island, and would bring the benefit of decreased flood risk at Weybridge.
Impact of silting up again after dredging or widening
1D modelling predicts that the dredging options (3 & 4) would require 12,000 cubic metres of dredging along 1.1km of Desborough Cut, or 10,000 cubic metres of dredging along 1.0km downstream of Desborough Cut, to have a neutral effect at Weybridge.
In discussion it was suggested to us that – while no decisions on preferred option are being made at present – dredging would have major maintenance implications, which are likely to make dredging Desborough Cut less desirable than widening.
We were told that the River Thames in normal flow ranges achieves a self-managing equilibrium, with silting and scouring occurring as flows change. Hence if dredged it would tend to silt up again (because dredging would allow normal flows to be carried at a slower water speeds) and it would tend to revert to its natural depth profile needed to carry its normal flows, unless regularly dredged.
One question which we did not think to ask at the time, was ‘would the same not be true of widening the Desborough Cut?’. Widening the Desborough Cut would allow normal flows to be carried at a slower water speeds, so would not a widened Desborough Cut similarly tend to silt up and become shallower, hence reducing the maximum flood flow capacity, unless it was regularly dredged back to its current depth? We are following up on this question.
Implications of widening Desborough Channel
In comparing options 1 & 2, widening Desborough Cut one side or the other, participants were agreed that there are more things to consider than simply cost and increased flow. A very significant factor is loss of amenity – something which led Elmbridge Borough Council to conclude in 2010 that it could not support the proposals for cutting back the south bank.
If 3 metres of the south bank were to be removed along the length of the Desborough Cut, this would have a serious impact on the amenity and appearance of this stretch of the Thames Path and National Cycle Route 4. It would mean moving the path in places closer to the traffic of Walton Lane, and would forever change a popular riverside path which is used by countless people. There would also be a potentially costly logistical question of how to manage works which would require a national path and cycle route to be closed during those works.
We learnt that the profile of the river bed of the Desborough Channel is not, as previously suggested, vertically deep on the piled south bank and shelving on the north. In fact, close to the south bank it has a shelving river bed, and the piling is simply there to hold back erosion. Hence cutting back the north bank would not necessarily be significantly more difficult or different in terms of flow impact.
Widening on the north bank would also enable the Environment Agency to deal with those elderly self-seeded trees on its riverside land along the north bank which are in an increasingly poor state, with branches breaking off and trees falling into the river with each major storm.
Bridge bottlenecks in Desborough Channel
A serious concern for Walton Lane residents is the bottleneck in river flow caused by the first bridge across the Desborough Cut. The bridge is much narrower than the channel either side, and it would be too costly to widen it if widening Desborough Cut.
At present, water backs up in times of high flow, with visibly different levels either side of the bridge – high enough on the upstream side that it flooded a neighbouring property in 2014. The river bed was scoured deeper beneath the bridge by those extreme flows of the 2014 floods.
This bridge would become an even more worrying bottleneck if Flood Relief Channel 3 is constructed, increased the potential maximum flow arriving at the bridge.
To facilitate flow under the bridge, the EA is proposing to dredge beneath the bridge, to create a permanently deeper section of river which will be easily scoured in future high flows; also to modify the profile of concrete banking upstream of the bridge.
As a short term measure, residents have funded a small earth bank to help hold back floodwater from overflowing the bank at this point, but more could be done, and more needs to be done if the RTS proceeds with the construction of Flood Relief Channel 3.
EA Proposals for Temporary Flood Barriers
The 1 August Walton Lane meeting was also told of proposals for local flood prevention measures, aimed to protect residents of Walton Lane and Dorney Grove.
These plans are still work in progress by the Environment Agency, but they including a possible temporary local flood barrier which could be erected at short notice to prevent flood water from the River Thames reaching Weybridge homes.
The temporary barrier could run from the bottom of Thames Street and along the Thames Path towards the first bridge across Desborough Channel.
The initial draft route for the temporary barrier would have blocked Walton Lane, and excluded some houses from protection, but residents at the meeting suggested extending the barrier slightly to the point where Walton Lane rises above flood level, avoiding the need to put a barrier across Walton Lane. On the other side of Walton Lane a length of barrier would help prevent water from the engine river reaching homes.
The EA has purchased 40 km nationally of this modular temporary flood barrier system, and Walton Lane / Dorney Grove is a target area for protection. The EA draft plans for Walton Lane are being amended following our meeting, to reflect the suggested rerouting. Further work will be done to look at the relative risk from river overflow and from rising groundwater (which the barrier could not prevent).
Potential for a permanent flood barrier?
Our meeting also discussed the possibility for a more permanent barrier along the river edge between Thames Street and the first Desborough Bridge, either in the form of a bank alongside the path or slightly raised path (as per the Wey Navigation).
Important factors beyond its effectiveness at holding back floods would include the aesthetics of flood protection works along this stretch of the Thames Path, impact on amenity, and the practicalities of easy river access for the WLA Rowing Club, Weybridge Sailing Club and the Canoe Club
Future River Thames Scheme consultation
RTS workshops are planned for the end of September, and Walton Lane Residents anticipate a further update meeting once the 2D modelling has been conducted of river flows and levels at different flood probabilities with Flood Relief Channel 3 in place.
The long awaited Weybridge Parking Review recommendations have received mixed reactions locally, and disappointment at what was not covered. Here we give an overview of the parking issues, and draft reactions from PPDRA to the recommendations.
When the Surrey County Council parking team presented its Weybridge Parking Review report of recommendations, and drawings to the Elmbridge local committee at its meeting of 27 June for initial approval, councillors at the meeting reported a lot of concern from local residents
SCC reports that “As a result of concerns expressed by committee members, we are currently considering comments received in response to the publication of these proposals, before deciding on what schemes should be put forward to formal advertisement. We are still aiming to advertise these proposals in September.”
At a public meeting on 14 July organised by Cllr Andrew Davis, PPDRA Chair Miles Macleod was invited to attempt an impartial non-political introduction.
Here are the notes from that introduction:
Weybridge Parking Review – An Introduction from PPDRA
Parking is an increasingly serious problem for our town. Weybridge needs:
- Reliable parking for residents
- Convenient parking for shoppers & visitors
- Affordable parking for workers
The issue is that demand for parking spaces exceeds supply.
- Weybridge has a particular problem in roads where Victorian and Edwardian homes have no off-street parking, so residents have to find spaces on-street, in competition with workers and shoppers unless there is a CPZ in their road.
Over the years this has got worse, with:
- more cars,
- new dwellings without private parking (which Government planning law forces Councils to permit near town centres)
- progressively more yellow lines and on-street restrictions which reduce overall capacity
Many residents were pleased when Surrey announced a strategic review, which would try to do something about that.
- Those who recalled the last strategic review, some 8 years ago, hoped it would be nothing like that – a plan which caused an outcry because it would have reduced parking capacity dramatically in parts of North Weybridge causing displacement to neighbouring areas.
PPDRA welcomed the new review’s aims. Our view has long been that:
- residents in individual roads should be consulted on CPZs, within an overall strategy and consultation with wider community
- the Councils — Surrey & Elmbridge — should work together to increase capacity
- something major is needed to address the shortage of off-street parking in Weybridge
What was our reaction on seeing the Review recommendations? Well, in some ways very disappointed
– where is the strategic thinking? What about off-street parking? And why were some roads entirely ignored?
But it does have some positive points, in some of the changes proposed.
PPDRA DRAFT reactions to the Weybridge Parking Review 2016 report of recommendations
It has some good points:
- Trying to address some important parking issues, and consulting residents of the most immediately affected roads – particularly those close to the High Street, with limited private off-street parking (where residents rely on being able to park on-street)
- Proposing CPZ changes/extension based on the responses of residents of those roads
- Proposing something to help control early evening on-street parking near the town centre (by extending restrictions to 8pm)
- Trying to do something to increase daytime short-stay shopper parking (by allowing it in some sections of CPZ roads)
- Addressing known safety issues around various junctions
And bad points:
- Failing to take a strategic view of Weybridge parking needs, and on-street vs off-street capacity
- Particularly failing to address the issue of public off-street parking shortage
- Ignoring roads east of Thames Street (e.g. Grenside Rd, Grotto Road, West Palace Gardens, Old Palace Road)
- Not assessing the impact of displacement parking from CPZs
- Not being effective enough in increasing short-stay shopper daytime parking capacity (e.g. Oakdale Road daytime spaces count)
- Doing nothing to assist long-stay worker parking
There is a fair overlap between our views and the views from the Weybridge Society, but where we differ is that PPDRA does not think that all changes should be put on hold while the strategic issues are sorted out – there is a parking crisis in some roads near the High Street, which needs urgent action.