River Thames Scheme consultation Dec 2022

The latest River Thames Scheme consultation, on proposals for routes and landscaping, is open 8 November 2022 until 20 December 2022. The new consultation includes an exciting option for active travel which would be very positive for Weybridge residents — the potential creation of a new ‘active travel’ pedestrian/cycle bridge crossing from Desborough to Shepperton. We understand that the RTS budget does not currently include this, but if there is strong support for the proposal, who knows… See below for links, and share your views.

PPDRA has been active in RTS stakeholder consultations from the outset, seeking to ensure that the scheme, which includes a relief channel discharging opposite Desborough Island, has a positive impact locally. We have supported proposals for lowering the riverbed downstream of Desborough, rather than widening Desborough Cut (which would displace the Thames Path), stressed the importance of conserving Desborough Island, and have promoted the benefits of including a new pedestrian/cycle bridge.

Here is a link to the RTS online questionnaire.

“Depending on the amount of information you wish to include, it could take as little as 5 minutes”

“All responses should be received by Tuesday 20 December 2022. If you want to read more about the scheme before you answer the questions, please look at our Consultation information. “

You can read more about previous RTS consultations and PPDRA questions and input on this website, including:

For information here is a copy of the personally submitted responses to the 2022 RTS Consultation from PPDRA Chair, Miles Macleod:

MM River Thames Scheme consultation responses

Question 4

Just downstream from Desborough Cut we are proposing lowering the riverbed. How much do you agree or disagree with this approach?

MM response:

Strongly support.

There were some very strong objections, from local residents and other users of the Thames Path, to widening the Desborough Cut on either bank:

– Cutting into the southern bank of Desborough Cut alongside the Thames Path and National Cycle Route would reduce the path’s green setting, and would displace the path in places, moving it closer to Walton Lane traffic. This would diminish a highly valued and much used amenity (and cause its entire loss for the duration of the works).

– Cutting into the northern bank would involve the removal of many mature trees.

– There was no proposal to widen Desborough Cut under the two bridges, which concerned nearby residents who have been flooded.

The validated modelling indicating that lowering the riverbed downstream would sufficiently increase the flow around Desborough Island offers a much more welcome solution for avoiding increase in local river levels and riverside flooding when the new flood channel operates.

Question 5

The River Thames Scheme will provide better access to new green open spaces, connect people with wildlife and deliver a more sustainable travel network. How do you think we should provide better access to new green open spaces?

MM response:

The new green open spaces look excellent. Sadly we will be cut off from them in Weybridge, other than via the Shepperton foot ferry or main roads.

It would be wonderful:

1/ To be connected to the new spaces via a new pedestrian and cycle river crossing, a simple slender bridge from Desborough Island to the Shepperton bank, immediately north of the west Desborough Cut bridge, which links to the Thames Path.

2/ To enhance the riverside green spaces beside the Thames Path in the Desborough Cut / D’Oyly Carte Island area, and the path surface itself. These are valued amenities that could do with some sympathetic care in line with the new open green spaces.

– The popular Desborough Cut stretch of the Thames Path / Cycle Route has become even more heavily used following the pandemic and lockdowns (when daily riverside walks meant joining a procession of people getting their outdoor exercise).

– The walked/cycled area of the path is now twice the width of the previous hardcore based path, and becomes extremely muddy and puddled in wet winter weather

– It would benefit from more stone surfacing to meet the needs of the increased use

– It would benefit from reduction of the self-seeded sycamore etc scrub along the riverbank, which has progressively obscured the river views in places.

– Some intentional planting of more suitable trees along the riverside would be welcome.

Question 6

How do you think we could allow users of the new green open spaces to connect with wildlife?

MM response:

Trees and information about wildlife are essential.

Some board walks and bird hides would be very welcome and add great value.

Question 7

How do you think we could create a more sustainable travel network in Surrey? For example, providing cycle/walking paths connecting places of work, schools, railway stations, and linking to other existing footpaths and trails, and so on?

MM response:

Better local linking via safe cycle routes and footpaths is much needed.

At Weybridge, people arrive heading west on the Thames Path / Cycle Route wanting to cross the river at Weybridge, and if too late for the privately run foot ferry have to retrace their steps to Walton Bridge.

It would be transforming to connect the existing Thames Path and National Cycle Route 4 to the new cycle/walking paths, via a new pedestrian and cycle bridge from Desborough Island to the Shepperton bank, immediately north of the west Desborough Cut road bridge.

This would link communities which are currently separated, and greatly increase the possibility of safe and green travel between them by cycle and on foot.

Improving safety: National Cycle Route 4 through Weybridge currently moves from the Thames Path away from the river onto busy roads, with no proper cycleways, where there have been fatal accidents to cyclists (Balfour Road / Weybridge Road).

Question 8

We will need to balance these factors in the design we develop
– Access to new green open spaces
– More sustainable travel network
– Connection with wildlife

MM response:

This is a difficult forced choice: 1 & 2 are really a dead heat, and all are interconnected.

Green spaces and connection with wildlife are at a premium within the M25, and important for mental wellbeing and physical heath. We are very lucky in Weybridge to have the tranquility of Desborough Island, a natural green open space which is visited and valued by countless walkers and dog walkers, and the Thames and Wey riversides with their captivating wildlife, enjoyed by thousands.

Sustainably connecting a network of green open spaces would be a big win.

Increasing sustainable travel is essential.

Question 9

While we are committed to providing green open spaces, creating habitats and increasing biodiversity, there may be areas where we need to balance these. We would like to know which of these you value most.

MM response:

Both equally important

Green open spaces are much more appealing when they are sufficiently natural and inhabited by wildlife.

Question 10

Is there anything we should take into account in our scheme design?

MM response:

The need for interconnection, so that more communities have wider access to the new spaces and habitats.

Question 11

Is there anything we should take into account in our approach to construction?

MM response:

Please minimise impact on residents’ use of existing amenities, such as the Thames Path, and the much loved and visited public meadows and footpaths on Desborough Island. We don’t want to be cut off from these!

And what is going to happen to the outdoor swimming at Shepperton?

Question 12

Finally, is there anything else you think we should consider as we develop our proposals for the River Thames Scheme further?

MM response:

The River Thames Scheme has caused much concern for residents in Weybridge Riverside over the years. The feeling that other people’s flood problems are literally being dumped on our doorsteps via new flood channels. That our local green and natural spaces are being threatened by proposed construction works that would REDUCE the quality our green and natural local environment — removing the green riverbank alongside the Thames Path, taking away public parts of Desborough Island — while promoting the benefits of less flooding and more green spaces for residents of Spelthorne and Runnymede.

We need to be sure that our lives in Weybridge are not going to be made worse by this very expensive project.

Latest Newsletter

AVAILABLE NOW !

We are currently distributing our latest Portmore Park & District Residents Association newsletter and membership form. PPDRA volunteers are delivering 1200 copies, to households in the roads we cover.

If you want to have an electronic copy — in lovely colour — you can download our

2018 Summer PPDRA Newsletter (pdf 996KB)
2018 PPDRA membership form (pdf 341KB)

Why join PPDRA?

YOUR MEMBERSHIP CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE

We help residents have a voice on local matters

We are a non-political, voluntary association of residents in north Weybridge who care about local quality of life, community and heritage. Open to all local residents.

PPDRA originated in the 1960s . We have a very positive record of making a difference on a range of major issues that affect our part of Weybridge:

Campaigning against dangerous rat run traffic in our residential roads, helped get traffic calming measures and a 20 MPH zone (which many residents want extended east of Thames Street)
Helped prevent a huge twin loop junction at Walton Bridge, which would have taken away public riverside land and sent more traffic along Walton Lane and Thames Street and through Portmore Park
Worked to overcome obstacles to Broadwater Path — which gives public access to Broadwater, opening the way for public funding to save the lake from silting up
Years of liaising with the Environment Agency on riverside amenities and flood planning
Informed comment on local planning applications
Conducting traffic surveys to monitor local flows
Working with St George’s Junior School on community relations and school traffic
Helping residents communicate with Surrey and Elmbridge Councils on local issues
Newsletters, community meetings, website, and more!

We request an annual subscription to help cover costs, of £3 per member; £5 per household (or another sum if you wish)

Viewpoint: Weybridge Parking Project

INTRODUCTION: We are grateful to PPDRA committee member Pauline O’Sullivan for this informative overview of the Weybridge Parking Project — work in progress by the Weybridge Society and Weybridge Town Business Group, a major undertaking on a significant topic.

It is excellent to see mention that:

any restrictions must not disadvantage residents in roads with limited or no off-street parking, and
parking restrictions must not increase rat run traffic through residential roads.

These are two concerns which local residents frequently express to PPDRA, which were included in our evidence to the project, not apparent in the original Parking Project report.

We welcome the prospect of the Parking Project accommodating these and other wider concerns. PPDRA strongly supports the principle of a strategic plan recognising the diverse parking needs across our local community. We also feel it is important that it covers traffic as well as parking, as the two are so interrelated.

Comments welcome!
…………………………….

Weybridge Parking Solution – Make your views known

Creative thinking is at last taking place to sort out parking and improve our Town. There are many factors involved and your input and ideas are important.

SCC and EBC have failed for years to implement an effective and cohesive parking plan for Weybridge that addresses increasing problems for business, shoppers, residents, schools and visitors. Getting this right is fundamental to the prosperity, look and feel of our Town.

As a result, The Weybridge Society (WS), in conjunction with the Weybridge Town Business Group (WTBG), undertook a voluntary initiative to produce an advisory document to start the necessary detailed quantification of the problem and an outline of the considerations for a potential solution. To view the Weybridge Parking Project Review & Proposal, plus a clarification and update, go to: https://www.weybridgesociety.org.uk/current-activities/weybridge-parking-review-2017-18/

The project involved only: the collection of hard data on the extra commuter parking space needed, the assessment of space available in existing car parks and their potential for expansion, and current charges/revenues. It also looked at current problems and considerations relating to the parking needs of all users and identified further work necessary to assess the wider impacts to be considered before any final solution can be proposed and implemented.

A comprehensive survey of local businesses revealed that a minimum of 725 commuter cars currently park each weekday on the streets around Weybridge High Street and the Queens Road Village. They make parking difficult for shoppers, visitors and residents, especially for those with no off-street parking. The solution being suggested is to provide more off-street parking for use by commuters and the creation of at least two Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) for residents that can be shared with short and medium-term shoppers and other visitors. The precise details of these CPZs are still to be decided and are likely to be shaped more in line with the official town boundary to take better account of the inconvenience suffered by residents in roads close to retail areas. Note these will not be concentric circles as used in the Proposal as indicative of distances from a central point.

In February, the WS and WTBG met with Weybridge and Surrey councillors to launch the Review and Proposal. Agreement was gained for it to be presented for adoption at the next Joint Executive Group of SCC and EBC. Cllr. Andrew Davis agreed to undertake the Feasibility Study into the potential expansion of existing car parks, acknowledging the need for creative ideas and no multi-storey eyesores. This was due to be delivered at end of June, but a lack of progress has meant that it is having to be recommissioned.

The PPDRA committee has discussed the findings, the outline of a potential solution, and the further work required as input to a cohesive Plan. The extra work is primarily the responsibility of EBC and SCC, but progress will need close monitoring and consultation with residents:

Feasibility Study into possible car park expansion to ease parking pressure in the two main retail areas and around the station.
Continued discussion on additional parking being provided as part of redeveloping the hospital site.
Traffic Management Review – volumes, flow, pollution levels, safety and potential impact of changes to parking and restrictions in residential roads.
Quantify parking needs around schools at drop-off and pick-up times.
Quantify the impact of evening parking needs on residents.
Investigate new parking opportunities and the further parking potential that could arise from changes being considered to the town layout.
Further Investigate the viability of a Park & Ride scheme from Brooklands.
Quantify the charging, economic viability and use of extended of car parks with the focus on their use by long-term parkers.

Key considerations in creating the new Parking Plan

It must not disadvantage residents in roads with limited or no off-street parking, nor increase rat runs.
Businesses must buy into their staff using carparks and the cost implications.
Residents must buy into paying for parking permits in return for local parking and having controlled parking zones to ensure that long-term parkers use car parks.
The timetable for implementing any new Parking Plan must ensure that adequate off-street space is available prior to introducing any more CPZs.
No further money should be spent on existing carparks until their future has been decided.

WHAT DO YOU THINK? HAS SOMETHING BEEN MISSED? Contribute your thoughts below, and come to the PPDRA AGM on 13 September to share views and hear from councillors. THIS IS IMPORTANT.

P O’S July 2018

—————————————————————–

UPDATE 11 Sept 2018

Here is some further helpful clarification from Pauline O’Sullivan on CPZ proposals from the Weybridge Parking Project, which illustrates how the Project is responding to local concerns. Comments invited.

Extending the CPZ in Weybridge

It is generally accepted that Weybridge needs more off-street space for long-term parking so that all residents can park close to their own homes. However, there is also a need to provide an element of short-term parking for shoppers and visitors within walking distance of the High Street and Queens Road trading areas.

Getting this balance right is not going to be easy, with many factors to be considered. The enlargement and changes of restrictions to the existing CPZ in 2015 resulted in more stress in adjoining roads, a reduction in parking for shoppers, and roads in the CPZ being left with lots of space for much of the day. A revised approach is therefore essential.

The Weybridge Society website (weybridgesociety.org.uk) gives full details of its recent Parking Project that quantified both the cause of the congestion (long-term commuter parking) and the needs of residents, shoppers and businesses. The Project concluded that there will have to be more controlled parking on our roads for off-street parking to work.

The current thinking of the Project is to have 2 CPZs, one broadly following the irregular shape of the official Town centre boundary and a similar one for Queens Road, both based on the acceptable average walking distances for commuters as determined by the Weybridge Society’s survey. Differing parking restrictions would need to apply within these CPZs to reflect the proximity to the High Street and Queens Road, and the needs of individual roads and locations, e.g. around schools. It is already recognised that a few roads may opt to be excluded from any restriction for practical and/or safety reasons, so getting the best result for all will be a complex process. Understanding the views of residents is therefore very important.

Make sure you have your say by providing feedback direct to the Weybridge Society as leaders of the initiative at: weysoc@mickey.me.uk and/or to this Association at contactus @ portmore.org.uk

Community Event and PPDRA AGM – 5 Oct 2016

Portmore Park & District Residents Association

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

Provisional Programme

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
9:45 Close

We hope to see you there!

OPINION: Thames Flood Diversion – Time For A Rethink?

The River Thames Scheme: piecemeal planning based on unreliable evidence?

OPINION by Miles Macleod
– The following article expresses the views of the author, and does not necessarily reflect the views of PPDRA.

Will the plans for River Thames flood diversion channels be an effective solution for flooding, or a source of bigger future problems downstream and increased flood risk to London?

The Environment Agency’s River Thames Scheme proposes three new flood relief channels alongside the Thames, intended to reduce flooding between Datchet and Chertsey. The final channel, with a capacity of 150 cubic metres per second, would be cut past Shepperton and discharge at Weybridge, opposite the Canoe Club.

‘The River Thames Scheme’ is perhaps a misleading name. Originally called The Lower Thames Flood Risk Management Strategy, it covers the stretch of non-tidal river between Datchet and Teddington. Not the whole River Thames.

Capacity increase funded, impact unknown
Downstream of the three planned relief channels, the River Thames Scheme proposes to widen the Desborough Cut at Weybridge, and to increase flow capacity at Hampton, Molesey and Teddington Locks, to carry extra water onwards towards London.

What would the effects be at Weybridge, and downstream towards London? Would it increase the flood risk?

At present, the Environment Agency can’t say. Why so? Because “the hydraulic model that will be used to assess the impact of the RTS (including downstream of Teddington) is currently being finalised“.

Yet over £300 million funding for the River Thames Scheme has been promised, on the basis of old assumptions and outdated flood risk and flow predictions. Meanwhile – as we will see later in this article – senior figures in the Environment Agency itself are questioning existing thinking on flood protection.

Risk to London
In the 2014 floods, the existing River Thames flow capacity carried 500 cubic metres per second of water over Teddington Weir. The Thames Barrier had to be deployed repeatedly, in sync with normal tidal flows, to help carry the excessive river flow onwards, and hence prevent flooding in the tidal Thames.

The River Thames Scheme proposes to increase the potential flow arriving at Teddington Lock by another 150 cubic metres per second. Will that increase in flow capacity lead to an increase in the flood risk to London? At present, the Environment Agency can’t say.

Some of us are deeply concerned at what seems like a succession of uncoordinated plans – different project schemes, with different political sponsors, looking at different parts of the river – moving the flood risk progressively downstream.

Previous experience
In 2002, a flood diversion channel bypassing Maidenhead, Windsor and Eton was opened. It discharges just upstream of Datchet. Called the Jubilee River, and costing £110 million, with a capacity of around 170 cubic metres per second, it has helped divert floods from Maidenhead, Windsor, Eton and Cookham.

In the years since the Jubilee River was opened, flooding has increased from Datchet downstream. That, according to the Environment Agency, is a coincidence. They say that the Jubilee River “operates so that flood levels downstream are not adversely affected”.

Local concerns
In 2009 the Environment Agency put forward the Lower Thames Flood Risk Management Strategy, setting out plans to address the flood risk downstream of the Jubilee River. That raised hopes for some people, and worried others.

In Elmbridge, people were concerned by the potential downstream effects of a flood relief channel discharging at Weybridge, and also the proposals for cutting into a significant amenity, the popular stretch of the Thames Path and National Cycle Route which runs alongside the Desborough Cut. The Environment Agency called this an ‘access track’. They proposed to widen this side of the Desborough Cut by 3-4 metres, and move the ‘access track’ closer to the road (Walton Lane) – but not to widen the two bridges across the Cut, which are existing bottlenecks restricting flow.

Elmbridge objections
The author of this article, Miles Macleod, was at that time an Elmbridge Borough Councillor for Weybridge North. That is where the planned third flood relief channel would discharge, bringing 150 cubic metres a second of additional water flow capacity. He alerted Elmbridge Borough Council to the implications for the Borough of the plans. Others councillors agreed that this was a serious issue for the Borough.

Elmbridge Borough Council studied the plans, and was concerned. It concluded in January 2010 that it could not support the plans for widening the Desborough Cut – plans which would need the Council’s consent.

Elmbridge Borough Council also said that the projections for flood risk and flows needed credible independent external verification, and fluvial and tidal flood strategies should be coordinated.

PR campaign
The Environment Agency found that in the financial climate of the time it could not secure funding for its Lower Thames Flood Risk Management Strategy plans. So it spent five years actively promoting the plans and the projected benefits, using its old flow calculations as evidence. It renamed the strategy as The River Thames Scheme – a name suggesting something more far-reaching than the lower Thames between Datchet and Teddington – but still could not raise enough funding.

Then the February 2014 floods came upon us, with particularly severe effects on residential areas between Datchet and Chertsey (downstream of the Jubilee River). The result was political pressure to fund the proposed Lower Thames flood relief channels between Datchet and Weybridge (and the wider Desborough Cut). At the time, a general election was not far away.

Lo, the remaining funding for the River Thames Scheme was secured. And it was secured despite new evidence about river flows and flood levels – experienced in the 2014 floods and more recently – which raised serious questions about existing flood risk and flow calculations and modelling, including those underpinning the River Thames Scheme.

Misguided approach
The relief channels should help moderate short term extreme peaks of flow, but if there are extended periods of very high flow they have the potential to increase the total volume of water flow arriving at Weybridge by some 30%.

The Environment Agency reassuringly says that the differences in projected flood risks are expected to be small in the revised calculations, drawing on recent evidence added to the accumulated evidence of the past 130 years. But the fact remains that the scheme begs questions which at present don’t have good answers.

The answers may continue to change: with a changing climate and more extreme events, we cannot rely so much on probabilities calculated from the frequency of past flood events. Flood risk models must build in higher probabilities of known maximum flows and levels being exceeded.

Complete rethink
There is a basic concern.

Flood defences need a complete rethink. Who says so? The Environment Agency.

Rarely has a truer word been spoken.

The Agency’s deputy chief executive, David Rooke, has said the UK’s climate is entering an era of unknown extremes, and that a complete rethink of flood protection and resilience across the country is needed.

The £300 million River Thames Scheme plans are based on calculations of risks and flows which recent evidence has already shown to be unreliable. They reflect a limited view of flood protection, and potentially increase flood risk to London from an extreme event, by significantly increasing flow capacity into the tidal Thames.

New approach needed
Successive extreme floods in various parts of Britain have led many people to the conclusion that current flood strategies are flawed, too narrowly focused and trying to tackle flood problems in the wrong way.

Piecemeal plans which move flood risk downstream are unacceptable.

A new approach is essential. The Thames needs a better thought out whole catchment plan, to help reduce the size of flood peaks along the length of the river – even in extended periods of exceptional rainfall.

A whole catchment plan might start with initiatives to slow down inflows along the length of the river, rather than trying to increase capacity in first one problematic stretch of the river, then another downstream.

Yet the River Thames Scheme appears to be going forward with great determination, to deliver what history may judge to be a very expensive mistake: an outdated, narrow and ultimately damaging project.

Time for that complete rethink? It is not too late!

Responses are welcome. Interested in contributing an opinion piece? Find out more…

Survey 2015: What do you want for Weybridge?

PPDRA is conducting a survey of local residents’ concerns and wishes for Weybridge, to help us continue to reflect local views.

Our Survey 2015 covers:

Weybridge Town Centre – how to make it more attractive to visit.
Parking – on-street and off-street provision.
Traffic through residential areas – volume and speed, and how to manage it.
Public riversides, green spaces and footpaths – appreciation, concerns and wishes.
Other local concerns.

Survey forms are being distributed with our October 2015 PPDRA Newsletter.
You can also download copy of PPDRA Survey 2015 here.

Portmore Park & District Annual Residents Meeting – 3 Nov 2015

Residents of north Weybridge are invited to share views at our
Portmore Park & District Residents Annual Meeting
Meet other residents and local councillors
Tuesday 3 November, 7:30 for 8:00 pm
St Charles Borromeo School Hall, Christ The Prince Of Peace (Portmore Way)
7:30 – Chat and light refreshments
8:00 – Hear about and discuss local matters which affect our community
We will also briefly conduct the formal business of the PPDRA AGM

Elmbridge Borough Councillors for Weybridge North, Andrew Davis and Ramon Gray, plan to be at our meeting to listen to and speak with residents. This year Ramon Gray was also elected as Surrey County Councillor for Weybridge (his predecessor Christian Mahne was at last year’s meeting).
We hope also to have a guest to speak about the parking review.
Note that PPDRA and our AGM are always careful not to be party political.

Download our October 2015 PPDRA Newsletter (pdf, 1334KB) here.

You can also download copy of PPDRA Survey 2015 (pdf, 508KB) here.

OPINION: Parking in Weybridge

Parking is a hot topic for our part of Weybridge. Many residents and traders feel there are simply not enough spaces near the town centre. Limited availability of off-street parking is a major factor, and PPDRA and others have been pressing for improvements. What should Elmbridge Borough Council be doing?
GUEST OPINION: The first in a series of guest opinion pieces. The following article expresses the views of the author, and does not necessarily reflect the views of PPDRA. Responses are welcome. Interested in contributing an opinion piece? Find out more…

An opinion by Mike O’Sullivan, Wey Road resident and PPDRA Committee Member.

Surrey CC seems to be getting its act together; will Elmbridge BC join the drama any time soon?

Most of us realise that public parking in Weybridge, in fact throughout the whole of the Elmbridge borough, comes in two forms; “on-street” i.e. on roads, and “off-street” i.e. in public car parks. Perhaps, less well-known is that each element is administered by a different local authority.

As the principal highways authority, Surrey County Council (SCC) duties broadly concern the free flow of traffic. Accordingly, it is tasked with the responsibility for the on-street parking element, including the imposition of restrictions such as yellow lines, time limits etc., whilst it falls upon Elmbridge Borough Council (EBC) to provide and manage off-street space in the form of public car parks. EBC also, confusingly, is subcontracted to enforce any restriction imposed by SCC.

Technically, parking on any publicly-maintained highway is not permitted. However, on such roads where no restriction exists, it is “tolerated” by the powers that be, and it is this on-street element that has continued to be such an emotive and unresolved issue in Weybridge for many years, with still no sign of improvement for the foreseeable future.

Until now, SCC has carried out an annual review of on-street parking through its consideration of the multitude of applications it has received throughout the previous 12 months from residents and/or resident organisations for restrictions to be imposed; either to reduce highway hazards, impose time restrictions, or facilitate resident parking within a particular road or roads.

Without going here into the detail of the decision-making process for these applications, which process has its own, arguable imperfections, SCC has recently recognised that this piecemeal approach has often merely shifted a particular problem from one area or road to another. [See Editor’s note 1*]

It is therefore hoped that the holistic, Borough-wide review procedure recently announced by SCC and approved by EBC (mentioned in the latest PPDRA Newsletter, and also to be found elsewhere on this website) will lead to an improvement in the status quo. (Newer residents may be interested to learn that an attempt was made by SCC to introduce a Controlled Parking Zone throughout North Weybridge in 2008, but a flawed consultation process, together with the inability of residents to reach a consensus on the various measures suggested, led to it remaining unresolved and was eventually dropped). [See Editor’s note 2**]

Although attempts to improve on-street parking can only be viewed as a sticking plaster over a widening wound, I believe SCC should be credited as seemingly being the only one of the two authorities in the mix that is actually doing something…anything, about alleviating the present, dire situation. However, it cannot be expected that “on-street” management by SCC alone will solve EBC “off-street” inadequacy.

The elephant in the room for me – and I believe for many others – is Elmbridge Borough Council. A North Weybridge Ward Councillor recently advised PPDRA that he was not aware of any active plan within that Council to increase public off-street parking in Weybridge. From my viewpoint as a concerned resident, I have seen no interest in, nor action, plan or policy being shown by Elmbridge Borough Council towards its responsibility to provide sufficient off-street space so desperately needed to accommodate the growing volume of long-term/commuter parking, and so help alleviate the present on-street problem.

Is it too simple to link this “off-street” inaction with the root cause of the present “on-street” parking chaos in our town? I personally don’t think so, yet as far as I can see EBC continues to leave SCC to manage the issue as best it can with minimal assistance.

I think it is about time that Elmbridge BC got its act together on this, and I intend to assist PPDRA on behalf of its local residents to lobby for some positive action. Personally, I do not think our Borough Council can simply be allowed to remain sitting on its hands and appearing to ignore its responsibilities here, whilst raking in car parking charges (did you know that they’re going up again in April?) and expect our local streets to absorb the overflow and inconvenience.

Should this article resonate with you, you might wish to contact the Elmbridge Councillor responsible for Highways and Transport at: dmitchell@elmbridge.gov.uk, let PPDRA have your suggestions for a solution at contactus@portmore.org.uk and take a topical opportunity to question your local candidate(s) in the run-up to the General & Local Elections.

Mike O’Sullivan

————————————-

Want to respond? Leave a reply below

————————————-

*Editor’s note 1: Local on-street parking restrictions, and the proposed new Elmbridge strategic parking review, are agreed by the Surrey County Council (Elmbridge) Local Committee, which is made up of SCC members and Elmbridge Borough Councillors.

**Editor’s note 2: Along with many local residents, PPDRA opposed Surrey County Council’s 2008-9 proposed North Weybridge CPZ scheme (which was offered as a take-it-or-leave-it package), since it would have imposed a significant reduction in the overall total of on-street parking spaces – leaving some residents with simply nowhere to park – with new restrictions in almost every road, including putting yellow lines along the whole length of Portmore Park Road, which residents feared would also increase rat-run traffic flow and speed. In SCC’s consultation on their 2008-9 CPZ scheme, nearly three quarters of all responses from North Weybridge residents were negative about the scheme proposed by Surrey. However, the consultation failed to ask what it was that people opposed. Were they against the specific CPZ scheme that Surrey proposed? And if so, why? Which aspects of it? Or were they against the principle of making a large part of North Weybridge a Controlled Parking Zone?

PPDRA recognises that there are strongly felt needs for parking control in some roads adjacent to the High Street, and believes that the forthcoming review is an opportunity for Surrey to conduct a more effective consultation, and arrive at a scheme which meets the needs of our local community – a scheme which makes much better use of available on-street parking space than the 2008 proposals.

In the Editor’s view, any on-street parking review must be properly coordinated with a review of off-street parking needs and provision – something that was attempted in a joint initiative by Elmbridge Borough and Surrey County Councils in 2008 when they commissioned consultants to produce a draft Elmbridge Parking Management Strategy, covering the whole of the borough. The draft was commented on in detail by EBC councillors via a Parking Management Strategy Task Group. There are several aspects of this which are relevant to the new proposed review, so PPDRA intends to put more about this on our website in the coming weeks.