Economic Impact Parking Controls

Draft

St Leonards Parking Economic Impact Study

Draft Interim Report

Hastings Borough Council

January 2008

Draft

St Leonards Parking Economic Impact Study Second Interim Draft Report

Project No: 135771 January 2008

Newcombe House 45 Notting Hill Gate, London, W11 3PB Telephone: 020 7309 7000 Fax: 020 7309 0906 Email : [email protected]

Prepared by: Approved by:

____________________________________________ ____________________________________________JS TC

Status: Draft Issue no: 0 Date: 18 January 2008

e:\project files\135771 st leonards parking study\report\interim final draft\st leonards parking eia study draft interim report v2.doc

(C) Copyright Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited. All rights reserved. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited, no other party may copy, reproduce, distribute, make use of, or rely on the contents of the report. No liability is accepted by Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited for any use of this report, other than for the purposes for which itwas originally prepared and provided. Opinions and information provided in this report are on the basis of Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited using due skill, care anddiligence in the preparation of the same and no explicit warranty is provided as to their accuracy. It should be noted and is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited has been made

Draft

St Leonards Parking Economic Impact Study Draft Interim Report

Contents Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I1. INTRODUCTION 11.1 Economic impact assessment study 11.2 Regeneration context 11.3 Study objective 22. ECONOMIC CONTEXT 32.1 Socio-economic background 32.2 Employment 42.3 Affordability 42.4 Parking charges 72.5 Present retail offer - Hastings Retail Study 82.6 Economic Impact of Parking Controls 102.7 Parking and shopping 112.8 Employees 152.9 Economic context summary 163. ASSESSMENT OF PARKING 173.1 Current Off street parking provision 173.2 Current On-street parking provision 193.3 Current parking management 203.4 Current parking behaviour 223.5 Current parking assessment conclusions 284. FUTURE PARKING DEMAND 294.1 Introduction 294.2 General background growth 294.3 New developments within the town centre 294.4 Change in the nature of St Leonards economic

performance 354.5 Future supply and demand car parking spaces 354.6 Future parking demand assessment conclusions 365. CONSULTATION 385.1 Introduction 385.2 Visitor survey 385.3 Parking survey 405.4 Employee survey 405.5 Stakeholder consultation 415.6 Consultation findings 426. ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORT SERVICES 436.1 Bus services 436.2 Train services 437. ECONOMIC IMPACT 457.1 Current CPZ proposal background 457.2 Proposed CPZ parking management 457.3 Proposed CPZ charges and management costs 46

Draft

7.4 Economic Impact 477.5 Economic costs of CPZ as proposed 487.6 Economic benefits 497.7 Balance of costs and benefits 507.8 Options 517.9 Option Conclusions 538. BIBLIOGRAPHY 54APPENDIX 1 - METHODOLOGY 55Current parking provision 55Future demand for parking 55Consultation 55CPZ management 55Affordability 56Consultation 56Final report and presentation 56APPENDIX 2 - SURVEYS 57Shopping/Visitor Survey 57Employee Survey 58Parking Survey 58APPENDIX 3 60Stakeholders Providing Written Or Verbal Comments 60APPENDIX 4 61Parking occupancy survey sample results 61APPENDIX 5 62Calculation of Economic Impact on Retail Spend of Current CPZ

proposal 62APPENDIX 6 63Central St Leonards CPZ Proposal Map 63

Tables Page

Table 2.1: Economic activity rates – Central St Leonards 3Table 2.2: Benefit claimants Central St Leonards – February

2007 3Table 2.3: House ownership 4Table 2.4: Proportion of the workforce who are: 4Table 2.5: Average weekly income in Hastings 5Table 2.6: Weekly household expenditure 5Table 2.7: Permit charges in Lewes 6Table 2.8: Annual permit charges for selected authorities 7Table 2.9: Floorspace Composition - St Leonards 8

Draft

Table 2.10: Change in retail provision by road 2004-2007 9Table 2.11: Parking requirements for different types of car use

over a week (hours) 10Table 2.12: Perception versus reality, travel by mode to shops 11Table 2.13: Average distance travelled by mode of transport

(percent by mode) 14Table 2.14: Frequency of visit by mode of transport (percent by

mode) 14Table 2.15: Economic activity of visitors 14Table 2.16: Travel to work by mode 15Table 2.17: Travel to work by distance 16Table 3.1: Crystal Square car park daily use 17Table 3.2: Marina car park daily use 18Table 4.1: Employment schemes, listing the number of jobs

and probability of occurring 31Table 4.2: Housing schemes, listing the number of units and

probability of occurring 32Table 4.3: Car park demand relating to office development 34Table 4.4: Car park demand relating to additional retail

development 34Table 4.5: Car park demand relating to additional housing

development 35Table 4.6: Possible future car ownership levels in St

Leonards 35Table 4.7: Spare car parking supply, business as usual 36Table 4.8: Spare car parking supply, enhanced economic

growth 36Table 4.9: Spare car parking supply, enhanced economic

growth 36Table 5.1: Visitors to St Leonards by mode 38Table 5.2: Spend by mode 39Table 5.3: Ease of finding a parking space 39Table 5.4: Length of period parked 40Table 5.5: Ease of finding a parking space, proportion stating 40Table 5.6: Method of travelling to work 41Table 7.1: Economics costs and benefits 51

Draft

Figures Page

Figure 2.1: Main mode of transport to local convenience store 12Figure 2.2: Spend by mode used 13Figure 3.1: Crystal Square Car Park Saturday 13/10/07 at

12:43 17Figure 3.2: Marina Car Park Friday 12/10/07 at 12:27 18Figure 3.3: Warrior Square Station Car Park Friday 12/10/07

at 14:18 19Figure 3.4: Illegal parking on the junction of Station Approach

and Stainsby Street 23Figure 3.5: Consequence of illegal and poor parking blocking

the entrance to Kings road 26Figure 3.6: Loading/unloading activity in Kings Road 26Figure 6.1: Town Centre approach from Warrior Square

Station 44

Draft

1


1. Introduction

1.1 Economic impact assessment study1.1.1 This report was commissioned by Hastings Borough Council (HBC) to

undertake an economic impact assessment of parking supply, demand and management options in light of the regeneration taking place in St Leonards.

1.2 Regeneration context 1.2.1 Although this report focuses on the economic impact of parking supply, demand

and management, it must firstly be put into context of the regeneration programme currently underway in St Leonards. This involves some £23m beinginvested in the area through a range of schemes, some of which are completed or underway. These include:

� £4.0m Housing Renewal Programme � £2.7m Townscape Heritage Initiative � £6.5m New development sites – with RSL’s � £3.4m Public Realm Improvements – SRB & other projects – focused on

the town centre and seafront � £3.8m Restoration of key buildings (Christchurch & Marina Pavilion -

completed)� £1.8m Social Housing Programme for the area (near completion) � £1.0m Restoration of St Leonards Gardens (completed)

1.2.2 Other initiatives not included above are major improvements to properties in the seafront area (Regents Court), in Warrior Square (Marlborough Hotel) or investment in the Southwater Renewal Area over the past 8 years.

1.2.3 Over the last 5 years HBC has worked with Stagecoach to develop and implement a quality bus partnership (QBP), which has been successful in meeting and exceeding its targets to improve bus services in the area.

1.2.4 HBC and East Sussex County Council (ESCC) are also currently preparingdetailed designs for Kings Road, which will vastly improve the environment, the perception and the feel of the shopping area.

1.2.5 The Kings Road proposal envisages improved pedestrian access with a reduction in on-street parking by approximately 24 spaces. These will however be replaced by the provision of approximately 33 additional parking spacesaround Warrior Square Gardens by introducing echelon parking bays.

1.2.6 These initiatives and the regeneration programme are creating positive economic benefits for the St Leonards economy. There is concern that currentparking capacity and parking management do not provide sufficient parking space to accommodate the additional visitors attracted to the town. There isalso concern that additional parking demand will add to existing parking difficulties and congestion. The activity of seeking out parking in congested areas creates further problems of additional pollution, illegal parking, safety hazards and frustration for all visitors trying to enjoy a visit to the town.

1.2.7 If visitors find accessing St Leonards difficult it will have a negative impact on the economic benefits that can be derived from the regeneration programme. A controlled parking zone was therefore proposed for St Leonards to help achieve the following objectives:

� Create more effective parking for local people and businesses

Draft

2


� Make it easier for shoppers to park near shops � Allow residents and visitors to park near their homes � Increase space for business deliveries and customers � Make it easier for buses to move around the area so they become an

attractive alternative to the car 1.2.8 Although the current parking problems in the town centre are recognised,

concerns were expressed that the proposals, which incorporate charges for on-street parking, charged resident permits and a reduction in opportunities for employees and commuters to park all day near the town, might be damaging to the economy of St Leonards, which is still weak. HBC therefore decided that an economic impact assessment study of parking demand, supply andmanagement on the economy of St Leonards should be undertaken to investigate these concerns.

1.2.9 This report will be presented to HBC, key stakeholders and the public to inform them of the findings to date. It will then be updated on the basis of this further consultation to help inform HBC on the economic impact of parkingmanagement on St Leonards.

1.2.10 The document currently sets out the background research, consultation, surveys and findings to date as follows:

� The economic characteristics of the area and a background review of the economic impacts of parking

� Current parking provision, management and behaviour. � Projections of future parking demand � Results of public and stakeholder consultation � Alternative transport considerations � The economic impact - conclusions and recommendations

1.2.11 Appendix 1 to the report sets out the methodology adopted to undertake the study, Appendix 2 has copies of the questionnaires used in the surveys and Appendix 3 lists the organisations and individuals invited to submit evidence that has helped to inform the study.

1.3 Study objective 1.3.1 The success of the regeneration programme will improve the area of St

Leonards and create a new and improved environment in which people wish to live, work, shop and spend their leisure time, The investments themselves and the changes instigated by these investments are designed to bring about this improvement and an associated improvement in the economic vitality of St Leonards. This will encourage more people to spend their time in the town and attract more people to the area.

1.3.2 People travel to and around the town on foot, by public transport and by car. Even with the current improvements in public transport through the QBP and improvements to pedestrian access, there are concerns that current and future parking capacity in St Leonards will create a limitation for car borne visitors. There is evident existing congestion in the town centre which supports this view.The current proposal put forward to address the existing problems and to make room for future demand is the CPZ scheme under consideration.

1.3.3 The key question addressed by this study is the economic impact of parking supply, demand and management in light of the existing economy, the regeneration and the current and potential future parking demand

Draft

3


2. Economic context

2.1 Socio-economic background 2.1.1 The Central St Leonards ward has a population of just under 6,000 people with

60% being of working age, which is slightly higher than for Hastings as a whole. However, economic activity rates are low being five percentage points belowthe Hastings average, while unemployment is double the Hastings average, which in turn is markedly higher than the national average. Table 2.1 highlights the present very high unemployment rate in the area.

Table 2.1: Economic activity rates – Central St Leonards

Proportion of those of working age in employment -

2001

Unemployment rate – October 2007

Males 62.1 10.6 Females 56.2 4.0 Total 59.4 7.7 Source: 2001 Census data, NOMIS claimant count

2.1.2 High unemployment and low economic activity rates means that the proportionof those of working age in employment is ten percentage points below that for Hastings. Paradoxically a higher proportion of those in employment have higher level qualifications than those in Hastings.

2.1.3 Around 20% of residents are on benefits of whom half are on incapacity benefit, Table 2.2. The proportion of residents on benefits is around 50% higher than the national average.

Table 2.2: Benefit claimants Central St Leonards – February 2007

Benefit Number

Total Claimants 1,300 Job seekers 330 Incapacity benefits 680 Lone parents 150 Carers 30 Others on income related benefits 75 Disabled 30 Bereaved 5 Source: NOMIS

2.1.4 Home ownership is low, around 20 percentage points lower than for Hastings as a whole, while 40% of homes are privately rented, as shown in Table 2.3. This type of accommodation typically has a high turnover of residents.

Draft

4


Table 2.3: House ownership

Central St Leonards

Hastings South East

Ward Non-Metropolitan District RegionOwned 44% 64% 74%Social rented 14% 16% 14%Private rented 40% 19% 10%

Source: 2001 Population Census 2.1.5 Average household size is also low at just 1.6.

2.2 Employment 2.2.1 The Annual Business Inquiry survey reports nearly 1700 employees working

within Central St Leonards, coupled with around 350 self employed people, which gives a total number of people working within the ward at around 2,000. Just over 200 of these work mainly from home.

2.2.2 Some key characteristics of the employment market are set out in Table 2.4. This shows that a far higher than average proportion of the workforce is female and to a lesser extent part time. This tends to suggest wage rates are likely to be lower than average for those who work in the ward.

Table 2.4: Proportion of the workforce who are:

Male Female Full time Part timeCentral St Leonards

40% 60% 57% 43%

Hastings 44% 56% 60% 40%South East 50% 50% 67% 33%Source: The Annual Business Inquiry Survey 2005

2.3 Affordability 2.3.1 This section examines the affordability of the proposed CPZ scheme to

residents of St Leonards. This has been considered in relation to incomes, the general cost of car ownership and costs of comparable schemes elsewhere.

2.3.2 In assessing affordability consideration needs to be taken of incomes, data isonly available at the Borough level. Average weekly incomes for residents in the Borough for 2006 are shown in Table 2.5. The median income is nearly £380 a week with the lowest decile earning £225 a week. For those in employment the £1 extra a week required to obtain a parking permit represents less than 0.5% of gross take home pay even for the lowest paid workers.

Draft

5


Table 2.5: Average weekly income in Hastings

Average and Weekly income

Median 377.4Mean 414.910 percentile 225.020 percentile 266.825 percentile 284.530 percentile 296.940 percentile 337.460 percentile 425.270 percentile 483.375 percentile 508.380 percentile 529.3Source: Annual survey of Hours and Earnings

2.3.3 Not all residents are in employment and weekly incomes for those who are retired or on benefits are generally far lower. The state weekly pension for a single person, for example, is £87.30. For a person on this level of income the cost of a parking permit becomes more significant being more than 1% of gross income.

2.3.4 Table 2.6 provides a snap shot of weekly household expenditure in total and ontransport across all income groups. It also shows weekly saving rates and what the percentage increase in expenditure on transport of £1 a week would be.

2.3.5 So average weekly expenditure across all households is £443 of which £62 or 14% is on transport. The biggest transport cost is the purchase and operation of a car. For the lowest two income groups a £1 increase in transport expenditure would exceed present weekly savings meaning that a reduction in expenditure would have to be made elsewhere (in addition to not achieving whatever the savings were to be used for). Weekly transport costs will increase by around 7% for these lowest two income groups.

Table 2.6: Weekly household expenditure

Allexpenditure

Expenditureon transport

Savings Percentage ofspending on

transport

Increase inweekly spending

on transport ifcost increases by

£1 Lowest ten percent

153.6 13.2 0.2 8.6% 7.6%

Second decile 178.9 14.6 0.4 8.2% 6.8% Third decile 264.5 29.9 1.3 11.3% 3.3% Fourth decile 310.1 35.3 5.3 11.4% 2.8% Fifth decile 356.7 44.8 1.9 12.6% 2.2% Sixth decile 434.6 61.1 11.7 14.1% 1.6% Seventh decile

479 63.5 6.5 13.3% 1.6%

Eighth decile 584.1 89.8 8.7 15.4% 1.1% Ninth decile 682.1 103.3 13.2 15.1% 1.0% Highest ten percent

989.7 161.9 23.1 16.4% 0.6%

All households

443.4 61.7 7.2 13.9% 1.6%

Source: Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings2.3.6 In terms of absolute affordability the cost of parking permits is likely to be a

major burden to the poorest 20% within the St Leonards area who own a car.

Draft

6


However, it should be noted that only a very small proportion of people withinthis income group are likely to be car owners.

2.3.7 Where a car is owned it is appropriate to consider the affordability of the proposed residents permits relative to the costs already incurred to maintain and run a car on the road. The Automobile Association 2006-07 Car Running Cost Guide indicates that the average running cost of a car costing £10,000 and doing an average of 10,000 miles per year is £0.3644/mile. This is equivalent to a cost of ownership of £3,644 per year. This cost already allows for parking charges and road tolls, but assuming this excludes a residents parking permit charge, the proposed first permit cost of £52 per annum represents an increasein car running costs of 1.4%. This rises to around 4% for an older car that is fully depreciated and does 5,000 miles a year.

2.3.8 In terms of comparability the permit price of £52 is the same as that for the present Hastings system. Other boroughs have a sliding system based on engine size. For example, the permit costs for Lewes are set out in Table 2.7.

Table 2.7: Permit charges in Lewes

Vehicles registered First permit cost Second permit cost

CO2 value Annual AnnualMore than 185g/km £95 £130185g/km or less £85 £120150g/km or less £75 £110120g/km or less £55 £90100g/km or less £15 £50Electric and LPG vehicles

£15 £50

Source: East Sussex County Council 2.3.9 Table 2.8 sets out permit charges in a range of local authorities and provides

examples of various charging schemes. This data was collated last year so there may have been some changes but it provides a good indication of the level of charges.

Draft

7


Table 2.8: Annual permit charges for selected authorities

Cost of Residents and Business Permits

AuthorityLowest

cost per annum

Highestcost per

annum

comments

Lewes £15 £130 Permit cost related to emissions, and highest cost is for second permit for the highest emissions vehicle

Hastings £35 £120 New rates being introduced. Highest is for second permit and lowest is for shared use bay.

Warwickshire CountyCouncil - Warwick Scheme

£10 £10

Preston City Council £17 £30 Higher cost payable if it is your second permit

Carmarthenshire County Council

£20 £50 Permits are free for Blue Badge Holders, LPG or electric car drivers. Visitors and Carers permits also free. The highest cost is for business permits,

Plymouth City Council £25 £25+ Business permits cost more Lincoln City Council £25 £50 Higher cost payable for business

permits Chiltern District Council £25 £25 Crawley Borough Council

£30 £60 Higher cost payable if it is your second permit

York City Council £43 £86 Lower cost (50% discount) if car has low emissions or is less than 2.7m long. Concessions for elderly ordisabled

Colchester Borough Council

£50 £50 Free for disabled persons

Bath and North East Somerset Council - Bath Parking Zones

£55 £60 Charge depends on zone

St. Edmundsbury, West Suffolk

£60 £80

Source: CB review of Local Authority web-sites

2.3.10 The proposed charges in St Leonards appear high, given its current relatively weak position compared to other areas noted in Table 2.8.

2.4 Parking charges2.4.1 The proposed parking charges are the equivalent of 60p an hour. This

compares with 85p for a single bus fare in the town and £1.50 for a day return. Pensioners are now entitled to free bus travel. So for short stay trips to the town centre it will remain far cheaper to drive and pay for parking than travel by bus for those who have to pay for bus travel.

2.4.2 For those who drive to work a weekly HBC parking season ticket costs £22 and an annual ticket £620. The weekly cost would be equivalent to 6% of median income and is double the cost of a weekly bus pass covering St Leonards, Hastings and Bexhill.

2.4.3 One illogical aspect of the proposed parking charges is that use of the publicoff-street car parks is 90p for one hour, which is more expensive than the proposed on-street parking charge. As on-street parking is preferred by drivers one would anticipate the cost of on-street parking to be higher than off street.

Draft

8


2.5 Present retail offer - Hastings Retail Study 2.5.1 This study provided an overview of St Leonards Town Centre which was

defined as an area incorporating “St. Leonards Warrior Square station and the area immediately to the south along Kings Road, the lower part of London Road, parts of Norman Road, Saxon Street and parts of Grand Parade”.

2.5.2 The study found a range of retailers present from national multiples such asBoots and Threshers, independent and specialist traders as well as banks and building societies and a number of restaurants and cafes.

2.5.3 The breakdown of town centre uses within the town centre was reported as in Table 2.9. A high vacancy rate is evident as well as a sizeable residential use.

Table 2.9: Floorspace Composition - St Leonards

Use Class Number Of Units Percentage of Units

A1 99 43.8%A2 21 9.3%A3 14 6.2%A4 6 2.7%A5 7 3.1%B1 7 3.1%C1 1 0.4%C3 28 12.4%D1 2 0.9%D2 1 0.4%Sui Generis 8 3.5%Vacant 32 14.2%Total 226 100%

Source: Hastings Retail Study 2.5.4 The study reported “a severe deficiency of parking provision for shoppers

leading to difficulties finding parking spaces” and “Traffic congestion is particularly bad along the principal shopping streets.” It also highlighted a lack of “magnet shops” and a general multiple store and a perception thatlandowners were content to keep stores on peripheral streets vacant with the hope of converting them to residential use.

2.5.5 The net retail floor space in St Leonards is estimated at 18,000sqm, of which nearly 2,000sqm is convenience, 9,000sqm comparison, 5,000sqm services and 2,000sqm vacant. The assumed turnover in St Leonards is estimated at around £28m. This compares to Hastings’s 66,000sqm and £170m turnover. That is, turnover per square metre of occupied retail space is 60% higher in Hastings than St Leonards.

2.5.6 The study also reported that the lack of good quality restaurants and up-market pubs/wine bars does little to encourage or promote the development of an evening economy and that there are too many A4 and A5 units located within the central retail area.

2.5.7 A survey for Tesco’s planning application in October 2004 for its store at West St Leonards mapped all the retail units in the town centre. We have updatedthis mapping exercise and the comparison is summarised in Table 2.10.

Draft

9

St Le

onar

ds P

arkin

g Eco

nomi

c Imp

act S

tudy

Draft

Inter

im R

epor

t

Tabl

e 2.

10:

Cha

nge

in re

tail

prov

isio

n by

road

200

4-20

07

Mar

ina

Roa

d S

ilche

ster

Roa

d Lo

ndon

Roa

d K

ings

Roa

d W

este

rn R

oad

Cro

ss S

treet

G

rand

Par

ade

War

ier

Squ

are

Tota

l

No

chan

ge in

oc

cupi

er

10

9 35

33

4

2 8

1 10

2 50

%

No

chan

ge in

ac

tivity

but

na

me

chan

ge

– co

uld

be

sam

e oc

cupi

er

2 0

1 5

0 1

9 4%

Cha

nged

oc

cupi

er b

ut

sam

e or

sim

ilar u

se

5 2

10

7 1

5 1

31

15%

Cha

nged

use

fro

m o

ffice

to

reta

il

2 0

0 1

0 0

3 1%

Vac

ant i

nto

use

3 6

2 5

2 3

21

10%

Rem

aine

d va

cant

2

4 4

0 4

1 2

2 19

9%

Use

into

va

cant

1

0 6

4 5

1 17

8%

Tota

l Vac

ant

3 4

10

4 9

1 2

3 36

18

%

Vac

ant i

nto

dwel

lings

2

2 1%

Tota

l cha

rity

shop

s 1

0 5

4 0

1 11

5%

Tota

l out

lets

25

21

58

55

16

3

21

5 20

4 10

0%

Sou

rce:

CB

com

paris

on o

f 200

4 pr

oper

ty u

se to

use

in O

ctob

er 2

007

Draft

10


2.5.8 Over the period 2004-7 only 50% of the 2004 retail units are still trading under the same fascias. Over 30 stores have changed occupiers, 21 vacant unitshave come back into use while 17 that were trading have become vacant. In total there are almost a quarter of units that are either vacant or charity shops. On London Road almost a third of units are vacant or charity shops, while in Kings Road the figure is 14%.

2.5.9 While there has been a slight reduction in the number of vacant stores the trading situation in St Leonards is poor. A few specialist and respected stores are almost loss in a sea of blandness.

2.5.10 To compound matters a planning application is expected shortly from Asda for a new 3,250sqm supermarket at Silverhill. The level of impact on St Leonards’ retail offer could be substantive.

2.6 Economic Impact of Parking Controls 2.6.1 There has been very little research into the economic impact of parking controls

a fact highlighted in the RAC Foundation’s report “Motoring Towards 2050 – Parking in Transport Policy”. The research that is available mainly revolves around what people will do if parking is made more difficult rather than what they actually did. There is usually a considerable difference between the two.

2.6.2 The RAC report highlighted the growing problem of parking provision as the number of cars continues to rise. It also raised the often overlooked point that cars spend around 90% of the time parked up and even trucks and delivery vehicles spend the vast majority of the time parked.

2.6.3 Every car requires somewhere between 140 and 168 hours of parking space per week as table 4.1 indicates. The table shows parking patterns for different types of driver. For all of them the highest level of parking demand is at or near to home:

� Driver A uses the car largely for domestic purposes, including shopping, leisure and travel. The car spends the vast majority of time parked at home.

� Driver B uses the car for both domestic use and for travelling to work, and the car spends 40 hours of the week parked at work.

� Driver C uses the vehicle for both domestic and business use. Although it is heavily used, the car is still parked at home for 80 hours a week.

Table 2.11: Parking requirements for different types of car use over a week (hours)

Description of use

miles/year Driving time Parked at or near home

Parked at or near work

Parked

elsewhere Driver A: Domestic

5,000 5-10 155 0 5

Driver B: Domestic / travel to work

10,000 10-15 110 40 5

Driver C: Domestic / business use

25,000 20-30 80 30 30

Source: RAC Foundation

2.6.4 Accommodating cars at home, at work and when visiting other locations becomes more problematic when off street parking is limited and brings about conflicts between users and significantly impacts on road congestion.

Draft

11


2.6.5 An under supply of parking can lead to “cruising for parking”, abandonment of the journey or a change in the final destination. Research by Shoup 1demonstrates that when on-street parking is free and in short supply compared to demand, and off street parking is charged for, then this situation generates “cruising for parking”. Cruising can generate substantial congestion, Shoup’s work found that the average cruise time ranges from 3.5 to 14 minutes and between 8-74% of vehicles on particular roads are cruising. The RAC report found that over 40% of car owners had abandoned a trip due to lack of parking.

2.6.6 Most local authorities recognise the importance of access to the vitality and viability of their town centres. To that end they have implemented parking controls with the aim of removing long stay parking, which is principally associated with commuting, to the benefit of a greater number of short stay visitors who may have a greater choice in their destinations.

2.6.7 Reducing availability and/or increasing the costs of parking has six possible impacts on car drivers who may:

� Change their parking location � Change the starting time of their journey� Change the mode used � Change their destination � Abandon their trip or � Change the duration of the trip.

2.6.8 The impacts of these changes vary depending on the reason for the trip. The main ones with which we are interested are shopping and employment.

2.7 Parking and shopping 2.7.1 From the previous section we have seen parkers are likely to make one of six

changes to their car use. For retailers the key concerns are those shoppers who change their destination and who abandon their trip. However, the starting point is to understand what proportion of retailers’ customers may be affected by any change in parking provision.

2.7.2 Retailers and shoppers tend to have different views on the issue of parking highlighting a major information gap with the former often over estimating its importance to their business.

2.7.3 Research undertaken by Sustrans2 has quantified the mismatch between the perception and reality in relation to the mode used to travel to shops as shown in Table 2.12 below. When retailers were asked “how do your customers travel to your shop?” they over estimated the number of shoppers coming by car by around 20 percentage points.

Table 2.12: Perception versus reality, travel by mode to shops

Walk Bicycle Bus CarRetailers – Graz 25 5 12 58Shoppers - Graz 44 8 16 32Retailers - Bristol 42 6 11 41Shoppers - Bristol 55 10 13 22

Source: Sustrans

1 Shoup D (2006) Cruising for parking Transport Policy Vol 13 p479-486

2 Sustrans (2006) Shoppers and how they travel - information sheet LN02

Draft

12


2.7.4 So in Bristol while retailers thought over 40% of shoppers arrived by car the actual figure was nearer 20%. As a result of this information gap the improvements that retailers and shoppers want is also very different. For example, a study in Edinburgh3 reported that while 51% of retailers wantedmore car parking the key concerns of shoppers were a good selection of shops and better provision of pedestrian facilities.

2.7.5 A similar survey in Hastings4 reported that 77% of shoppers wanted an improved range of shops while only 19% mentioned better parking. Again in Hastings it was also found that the majority of visitors had arrived by means other than private car.

2.7.6 The counter argument from retailers is that those who arrive by car spend morethan those who walk or arrive by public transport. The evidence on this is not straight forward. Research on behalf of Commission for Integrated Transport (CFIT)5 examined how people travelled to various types of shopping centre and how much they spend varied by different modes of travel.

2.7.7 As shown in Figure 2.1, the data taken from the CFIT study indicated that the majority of people walk to their local convenience store while 40% travel by car. While St Leonards offers a greater range of retail services it is principally a convenience shopping centre.

Figure 2.1: Main mode of transport to local convenience store

Source: Commission for Integrated Transport (2006) Sustainable Transport Choices and the Retail Sector Final Report

2.7.8 As shown in Figure 2.2, the data from the CFIT study indicated that the amountspent by mode of transport varies slightly. Those travelling by car spend more than those who walk. However, given that more people walk than arrive by car the relative importance of shoppers who travel by car and walk is broadly the same in terms of the total amount spent. 3 Rye T., Cowan, T. and Ison, S. (2004) Expansion of a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) and its Influence on Modal Split: The Case of Edinburgh, Scotland and its Relevance to Elsewhere, Paper to 83rd Annual Meeting of TRB, Washington. 4 Hastings Retail Study5 Commission for Integrated Transport (2006) Sustainable Transport Choices and the Retail Sector Final Report

Draft

13


Figure 2.2: Spend by mode used

Source: Commission for Integrated Transport (2006) Sustainable Transport Choices and the Retail Sector Final Report

2.7.9 Traffic and shopping tend not to go together. The freedom to move around a shopping area without having to negotiate moving traffic and parked vehiclesmakes the shopping experience more relaxed. Hence the move towards pedestrianised streets high streets and shopping malls in retail areas. A survey in Leicester6 showed a clear link between the percentage of shops vacant and the volume of traffic passing by. The study showed that pedestrianised streets had the fewest vacancies and the vacancy rate increased as the traffic levels increased.

2.7.10 A frequent quoted rationale for controlled parking in retail areas is to increase turnover of parking to enable better access for shoppers. In a review of Lewes’ CPZ the Director of Transport and Environment at ESCC reported in July 2005 that “there is now a greater turnover of parking in the main shopping street and in many car parks”. In a report for TRL7 it was stated that the aim of the CPZ introduced in Barnet was to give more opportunity for residents' and shoppers' parking by reducing the extent of long-stay non-resident parking. Following the introduction of the controlled zone the number of parking acts recorded on-street fell by around a fifth, and mean durations also fell. At off-street car parks the number of vehicles recorded remained almost constant, but mean durations dropped. The introduction of parking meters to the High Street has createdmore legal parking opportunities and reduced parking on yellow lines. Mean journey times through the High Street have decreased southbound, and northbound an increase in flow has occurred. The level of illegality has increased only marginally between the "before" and "after" situation, despite theintroduction of different types of parking regulation. Decrementing pre-payment cards have proved operationally successful, although their use has only accounted for 4.5% of revenue at pay-and-display machines. The report concluded that the controlled zone had operated successfully: more parking space had been provided for residents and shoppers, at the expense of non-resident commuters.

Previous shopper/visitor survey in St Leonards 2.7.11 The Central St Leonards Shopping Survey conducted by East Sussex County

Council during September 2006 found that 22% of shoppers arrive by car compared with 57% who walk. That survey highlighted some key differences between shoppers/visitors depending on their mode of transport.

6 Sustrans Traffic restraint and retail vitality (2003) 7 TRL - The impact of a controlled parking zone in Barnet by J. Smith (1992)

Draft

14


2.7.12 Not surprisingly, as Table 2.13 illustrates, those who walk to the town centre live very locally. Over 60% within ½ mile or a 10 minute walk. Car drivers on the other hand lived much further away with half being more than two miles away.

Table 2.13: Average distance travelled by mode of transport (percent bymode)

Walk Car Other<½ mile 62 5 14½ -1 mile 23 10 81 - 2 miles 10 20 302 - 5 miles 1 33 225+ miles 3 28 30

Source: ESCC shopping survey 2.7.13 Those who walked to the town centre also visited it far more often, nearly half

coming four times a week or more. While a similar proportion who arrived by car came less than once a month, Table 2.14.

Table 2.14: Frequency of visit by mode of transport (percent by mode)

Walk Car Other4+ a week 49 15 222-3 a week 32 31 27Once a week 11 13 191-2 a month 6 28 32infrequent 0 13 0

Source: ESCC shopping survey 2.7.14 A high proportion of visitors to St Leonards are retired, nearly a third, a similar

proportion are employed while one in six are unemployed.

Table 2.15: Economic activity of visitors

Economic activity PercentFull time employment 19Part time employment 10Retired 32Self employed 8Unemployed 16Student 5Home maker 6other 4

Source: ESCC shopping survey 2.7.15 So those who walk to St Leonards town centre tend to be very local and

frequent visitors. Car drivers live further away and visit more irregularly. The ESCC survey showed that those who walked were responsible for 55% of town centre spending, those who came by car 25%, and 10% each for those who came by bus and other modes.

2.7.16 In summary, evidence from previous research suggests that for local centres spend by people who walk is equivalent to spend by those who come by car and that shoppers regard the quality and choice of shops and the environment more important than parking provision. That is not to say that the loss of revenue of those who come by car can be disregarded as not being important but when planning parking restrictions an appropriate balance needs to be reached to accommodate all shoppers regardless of which mode of transport they use.

Draft

15


2.8 Employees 2.8.1 For employers the impact of losing free parking for employees tends to be less

immediate than the impacts on retailers. It has long been standard practice for local authorities to reduce the availability of all day parking aimed at workers in favour of short term parking. The latter being aimed at shoppers and visitors. No evidence has been presented that this has been to the major detriment of the commercial life of the country’s town centres.

2.8.2 However, employees are used to having free parking. Surveys8 suggest that 75% of employees have free parking at work, 19% have free parking on-street or in nearby car parks and only 6% pay to park. People are also prepared to walk long distances to maintain their free parking. In Edinburgh, for example, around a quarter of cars parked during the daytime in residential streets outside the central area CPZ (some 20-25 minutes walk from the central area) are those of commuters. Research9 suggested extending the CPZ outwards by a further half mile would just displace parking further out and it would take a move of around a mile and a half to make a significant reduction in car use. Research from areas as diverse as the US and Israel found around 10% of workers were walking over 10 minutes from where they parked their car.

2.8.3 The impact of parking provision on business location is also mixed. The main reasons for business moving mainly relate to property issues, such as end of lease or need for expansion10. The choice of a new location is heavily dependent on labour availability, quality of location and immediate availability of suitable accommodation which include accommodation with adequate parking provision.

Travel to Work 2.8.4 At the time of the 2001 Census half the workforce in St Leonards drove to work

and presumably therefore required a parking space. This equates to approximately 800 car parking spaces being required. Table 2.16 shows the breakdown by mode and compares St Leonards with Hastings generally.

Table 2.16: Travel to work by mode

Central St Leonards

Hastings

Train 10% 5%Bus, minibus or coach 8% 6%Taxi or minicab 1% 1%Driving a car or van 47% 60%Passenger in a car or van 6% 9%Motorcycle, scooter or moped 1% 1%Bicycle 3% 2%On foot 23% 16%

Source: 2001 Population Census 2.8.5 As table 2.17 highlights around a third of St Leonards’ workforce live within

walking distance but on the other hand more than a quarter live more than 5 kmaway from the town centre. 8 RAC Foundation Motoring towards 2050 9 Rye T., Cowan, T. and Ison, S. (2004) Expansion of a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) and its Influence on Modal Split: The Case of Edinburgh, Scotland and its Relevance to Elsewhere, Paper to 83rd Annual Meeting of TRB, Washington 10 New Location Factors for mobile investment in Europe Netherlands Economic Institure and Ernst & Young

Draft

16


Table 2.17: Travel to work by distance

Distance travelled to work Central St Leonards

Hastings

Less than 2km 34% 37%2km to less than 5km 38% 38%5km to less than 10km 14% 13%10km to less than 20km 5% 5%20km to less than 30km 6% 3%30km and over 3% 3%

Source: 2001 Population Census 2.8.6 In summary employees are used to being provided with free car parking. In St

Leonards half the workforce commutes to work by car and around two thirds live beyond walking distance. Given the rise in car ownership since 2001 we wouldexpect a further increase in car commuting to have taken place since then.

2.9 Economic context summary 2.9.1 Central St Leonards is a mixed area. On one hand it would appear to contain a

higher than average professional group. (These individuals are likely to commute out of the area to work including to London.) On the other it has low economic activity rates, high numbers of benefit claimants and low home ownership.

2.9.2 The characteristics of employment in the area suggest that it is a relatively low wage economy.

2.9.3 Taking into account the economic characteristics of St Leonards the evidence suggests that the costs of the new proposed CPZ in terms of both permit charges and parking charges are relatively high. Conversely, the costs of car ownership and the costs of alternative public transport make the proposed charges appear more reasonable.

2.9.4 The real issue will be whether those paying the charges perceive they are receiving benefits that represent value for money. Residents with serve parking problems are grateful to be protected by residential parking schemes and in these circumstances accept a cost of administration. Charging for parking at shopping centres is common and can be significant, especially where the retail offer is attractive. However, in the majority of these cases the level of charging is being used as a demand management tool, but in St Leonards case demand is not high enough to justify such an approach and is unlikely to be till after 2010. Some charges at moderate levels would help to address some specific problems arising from free parking within the main shopping streets and to start establishing controls for commuter parking.

2.9.5 It is therefore whether the current and future circumstances within St Leonards require the currently proposed CPZ measures and, if required, whether the economic cost of these can be justified on the basis of economic improvements derived from their implementation.

Draft

17


3. Assessment Of Parking

3.1 Current Off street parking provision 3.1.1 There are three major public car parks in the CPZ area, Crystal Square and

Marina car parks owned by the council and Warrior Square station car park owned by Network Rail.

3.1.2 Crystal Square has 30 places and a charging period of 8.00 to 18.00 seven days a week. Average occupancy Monday to Saturday in the financial year 2006-07 is just under 40%. Average usage of the car park by day is given below. Friday is the busiest day with around 70 cars, Monday to Thursday are all similar with 60 while on Saturday the numbers fall to 50 and Sunday just 5. Except on Sundays, where the numbers are very small, the average stay is very similar across the week with around 60% staying under one hour, 20% for one-two hours and 20% over two hours.

Table 3.1: Crystal Square car park daily use

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday TotalAverage daily use

60 60 60 60 70 50 5 50

Stay <1hr 63 61 57 60 68 64 21 62 1-2 hrs 19 18 21 19 16 17 21 18 >2hrs 18 21 22 21 16 19 58 20 Source: CB analysis based on HBC parking data

3.1.3 Nearly half the users arrive between 9-12.00, with the busiest time being between 11.00-12.00 on Saturday with an average of around 12 arrivals.

.

Figure 3.1: Crystal Square Car Park Saturday 13/10/07 at 12:43

3.1.4 With the present system of usage the car park could increase its throughput to around 140 cars a day. If however, the car park operates a maximum two hour stay then capacity could be increased to around 200 a day although users may not be able to find a space at the busiest times. Average revenue per space is just under £800 a year.

Draft

18


3.1.5 Marina car park has 90 places and operates the same charging system asCrystal Square. However, usage is very different with half of its usage occurringat weekends and with longer term stays. Average occupancy is only 10% rising in the peak summer weeks to around a quarter.

Table 3.2: Marina car park daily use

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday TotalAverage dailyuse

30 20 20 20 20 50 65 30

Stay<1hr

47 46 45 46 45 40 34 41

1-2 hrs 20 22 23 22 21 20 23 22 >2hrs 33 32 32 32 34 40 33 37 Source: CB analysis based on HBC parking data

3.1.6 Over half of users arrive after 13.00. The car park offers considerable potential to accommodate a substantial increase in volume. Average revenue is just over £200 a year per space.

Figure 3.2: Marina Car Park Friday 12/10/07 at 12:27

3.1.7 St Leonards Warrior Square station car park has 25 spaces and charges £2.20 for all day parking before 14:00 and £2 after this time. There is no charge on Saturday and Sunday. Observation of the car park suggests it is around 75% full during weekdays when charges apply. The station is used by around 600 people in the morning peak period.

Draft

19


Figure 3.3: Warrior Square Station Car Park Friday 12/10/07 at 14:18

3.1.8 West St Leonards station car park has 32 spaces and charges £2.20 Monday to Friday peak and £2.00 off peak and free at weekends. Hastings station car park has 132 places and charges £2 Monday to Saturday and free on Sundays. However, at the time of writing this car park is now closed during redevelopment works.

3.2 Current On-street parking provision 3.2.1 It is estimated that the number of kerbside parking spaces available within the

proposed CPZ boundary is 3,168 spaces. Some of these spaces will be lost due to the need to introduce sections of yellow line at junctions to ensure that they can continue to operate safely.

3.2.2 At the time of the 2001 Census the majority of households in central St Leonards did not have a car. In total there were some 1,900 cars within the area at this date.

3.2.3 Two parking surveys have been conducted in conjunction with the possible introduction of a CPZ in St Leonards. One was a day time survey the other a night survey. The aim of the latter was to assess the number of resident cars parked within the area while the former was to identify non-local parking withinthe area. There are some differences in the streets covered by both surveys so they are not directly comparable.

3.2.4 The night time survey identified parking capacity of 2,163 places and an occupancy of 1,267 (60%) within its study area. With the exception of some streets to the west of the proposed zone, the vast majority of streets had considerable night time spare parking capacity.

3.2.5 The day time survey attempted to differentiate between cars that are owned by CPZ residents and non-residents. The survey found an average of 700 St

Draft

20


Leonards owned vehicles and 750 not owned by residents parked in the area11. Where figures can be readily compared between the day time and night time surveys it would suggest an occupancy rate of around 45%.

3.2.6 The proportion of non-local cars parked varies greatly depending on location. Around 90% of those cars observed in the Mount are registered to CPZ residents, 70% in Carisbrooke Road and down to 20% in Hatherley Road. While taking account of both St Leonards and Hastings residents, 40% of cars in Marina are registered to non-local residents, 30% in Warrior Gardens, down to 10% in Cornfield Terrace.

3.2.7 It should be noted that there are many reasons why the registered address for a vehicle is not the same as the address of the user. The most common is that the vehicle is a company car. We would therefore anticipate that the data under estimates the proportion of St Leonards CPZ vehicles by around ten percentage points. However, this does not negate the central point that a high proportion cars parked within the St Leonards CPZ during the day are used by non-residents.

3.3 Current parking management 3.3.1 The Central St Leonards area is a diverse mix of residential, retail, commercial

and business property. This creates numerous competing demands for parking space and it is clear that week-day parking is nearing capacity in the busier areas around the station, town centre and Hastings Art College.

3.3.2 The availability of free all day parking creates a significant number of trips to the area by employers, employees and commuters. Some 68% of employees surveyed reported driving to work, which adds to congestion and limits the available parking space for short stay visits.

3.3.3 Many residential areas are densely populated with property, some of which isvery large and many are converted, or being converted into flats. There are also some large residential developments of flats in the Warrior Square and Marina area that create concentrated high demand for parking space within their vicinity. Many properties in the area lack any off-street parking and therefore on-street parking is the major source of parking in most residential streets.

3.3.4 There are three public pay and display car parks in the St Leonards area - 30 spaces in Crystal Square, 97 spaces in Marina and 40 spaces in St Margaret’s car park. The first two, which are closest to the centre, were surveyed and thisindicated they are only partially used, even at peak times. The tariffs for all of these car parks are:

- Up to 1 hour £0.90 - Up to 2 hours £1.40 - Up to 3 hours £2.00 - Up to 5 hours £3.00 - Up to 24 hours £5.50 - Motor cycles 1 hour rate for all day - 6 pm – 9 am Free

3.3.5 There is another public car park to the east of St Leonards at Falaise Road with 53 spaces, which serves the White Rock Gardens. Although outside of the proposed CPZ area, it was noted that this car park’s tariff structure is significantly lower: 11 This is based on our understanding of how many beats were undertaken in the Hastings BC surveys. The data seemed to have been misinterpreted in the SDG study as being numbers of vehicles observed over a period of 14 days divided by 14 to give a daily average, although some streets had been visited more than once within a day.

Draft

21


- Up to 1 hour £0.10 - Up to 2 hours £0.20 - Up to 3 hours £0.30 - Up to 4 hours £0.50 - Motor cycles 10p for all day - 6 pm – 8 am Free

3.3.6 With the exception of the Falaise Road Car Park, the observational evidence is that other off-street parking space is under utilised. Given the availability of on-street free parking and the cost of using off-street parking, this isunderstandable.

3.3.7 Although car ownership is shown to be well below the national average by the 2001 census data, there is a significant amount of on-street parking evident at all times. A comparison between a week-day and Saturday indicates there is higher demand in the week for parking, although the perception is that it can be harder to get a parking space on Saturdays. It is assumed weekday demand arises from those working, shopping or carrying out other business within St Leonards, or from those commuting elsewhere from St Leonards Warrior Square Station.

3.3.8 With some exceptions the majority of on-street parking in the St Leonards residential areas is unrestricted. In some cases cars are parked up to and on the junctions, which creates a safety hazard when negotiating these junctions. The implementation of junction protection restrictions, as proposed in the current CPZ plans, will decrease unrestricted kerb space but is considered advisable to help improve road safety regardless of whether a CPZ is introduced.

3.3.9 The roads in and around the centre, which mainly comprise the retail outlets, banks, a post office, charity shops and other small business premises, have restrictions to parking, loading and waiting.

� Kings Road is mainly limited waiting 2 hours no return for 2 hours. It has a loading bay at the southern end, although this can be blocked and loading / unloading can be observed taking place from the centre of the road, which obviously obstructs the road and causes congestion.

� London Road is mainly no waiting from the sea front north to Station Approach. North of this there is unrestricted parking, with a footway and verge parking ban, which is parked to capacity during the week. Thislocation is close to both Ocean House and Heron House, being two of the largest offices in this area as well as a short walk to St Leonards Station.

� Roads in the vicinity of Kings Road and London Road have a mix of waiting restrictions and 2 hour limited waiting some with permit holder shared use, loading and disabled bays. This area comprises – - Cross Street - North Street - Shepherd Street - Norman Road- Saxon Road

3.3.10 There are also some existing residential permit parking schemes, as follows:

� Scheme A – Permit Holders Only, Mon – Sat 9 am to 6 pm Permits cost £52 and there are currently 82 permit holders. - Eversfield Place - Verulam Place

� Scheme J – Permit Holders Only Mon – Fri 8:00 am to 8:30 pm Permits cost £35 and there are currently 20 permit holders. - The Mount

Draft

22


� Scheme K – Limited Waiting Mon – Sat 9 am to 6 pm maximum stay 2 hours, no return within 2 hours, resident permit holders exempt. Permits cost £25 and there are currently 85 permit holders. - Alfred Street (incl. Alfred Terrace) - East Ascent - Gensing Road (incl. St Mary’s Cottage) - Harold Mews- Maze Hill (from East Ascent to Maze Hill Terrace) - Maze Hill Terrace - Mercatoria - Mews Road (excl. Saddlers Court) - Mount Pleasant (incl. St Clements Place)- North Street - Shepherd Street (incl. Temperance Cottages) - Stanhope Place - Union Street

� Zone K permit holders are only allowed to park in Limited Waiting bays located in:- - Alfred Street - East Acsent - Gensing Road- Mercatoria - Mews Road - North Street - Sheppard Street - Stanhope Place

3.3.11 The review carried out indicated that all these residential schemes are used close to capacity, although during the day some 50% of vehicles parked are visitors rather than residents.

3.4 Current parking behaviour 3.4.1 A sample of streets in the St Leonards area were selected on which to carry out

occupancy beat surveys. The general areas covered by these beats were:

1. St Leonards Station and residential areas to the north and west; 2. the Town Centre, Warrior Square (west side), Norman Road, London

Road and Grand Parade; and 3. the Crystal Square and Marina off-street car parks and the area between

these car parks including North Street, Gensing Road, Norman Road and East Ascent.

3.4.2 Area 1 was undertaken as beats every 2 hours, given the majority of parkingwas expected to be longer stay and the other two areas were done as hourly beats. A beat in all areas was undertaken at 5:00 am in the morning on Friday 12th October to identify vehicles likely to belong to residents. This data was used to identify resident vehicles throughout the other beats to distinguish thesevehicles from those of visitors. The visitors were subsequently split into two groups based on length of stay – “Commuters”, where the duration of stay was 6 hours or greater and “Visitors” if the duration was less than 6 hours.

3.4.3 The parking capacity has been estimated from the existing length ofunrestricted kerb or permitted parking places divided by 5 metres to give a theoretical number of spaces. It was noted that the lack of junction protection restrictions in some streets gives rise to parking right up to and on the junction in some cases – See Figure 3.4.

Draft

23


Figure 3.4: Illegal parking on the junction of Station Approach and Stainsby Street

3.4.4 The surveys have identified some key points which are best demonstrated by the occupancy and duration graphs presented at Appendix 4 and described here:

Appendix 4 Page 1- Crystal Square Car Park 3.4.5 On Friday Crystal Square was approximately 66% occupied from 10:00 am to

4:00 pm. Approximately half the visitors to the car park stay for 1 or 2 hours and there are several vehicles that use this as a long stay car park, even though the all day charge is £5.50.

3.4.6 On Saturday, the car park was very poorly utilised rising slowly throughout the morning to 12 occupants at 1:00 pm. It is interesting that responses to surveys and views expressed suggest that parking is more difficult on Saturdays, which does not appear to accord with the spare capacity in this car park.

Appendix 4 page 2 – Marina Car Park 3.4.7 This car park was poorly utilised throughout Friday and Saturday, which is

consistent with the data analysis of P&D tickets sold throughout the year. Therewas a spike of some 25 1 hour duration visits at 2 pm on Friday, taking occupancy up to 58 of 97 spaces. Average occupancy for the rest of Friday was 14 vehicles. It has also been suggested that the peak may be related to a Friday meeting within the vicinity of the car park, which may mean this is not repeated on other week days.

3.4.8 Saturday’s average occupancy was just over 6 with a maximum of 14 observedat 1 pm.

3.4.9 Marina is a facility capable of providing some 97 parking spaces that is clearly under utilised. It is not especially well placed to serve the main town centre for

Draft

24


short stay visits, but it could possibly be re-classified as a long stay car park with a lower all day charge to accommodate employee and commuter parking. Some arrangement may be required to consider seasonal parking, given its position on the sea front.

Appendix 4 Page 3 – Station Approach 3.4.10 This is an area in close proximity to Heron House, the station and Kings Road.

It can be seen that about 10-15 of the vehicles parked at 5:00 am on Friday are there throughout the day. Some 30 vehicles were observed parking as commuters. Between 9 am and 11:00 am some 31 vehicles were observed parked as visitors, which took occupancy up to capacity, but during the remainder of the day there were at least 20 spaces available on average.

3.4.11 It is also noted that the station car park, which costs £2.20 to 14:00 and £2.00 afterwards Mon-Fri and is free Sat and Sun, was observed to have about 50% to 75% of its 35 spaces occupied on the Friday. Charges are collected by a private management company to cover the cost of operating and enforcing the car park. It is difficult to say why users of this car park currently pay with free parking in close proximity, unless it is the convenience, security, habit or use of a season ticket that encourages use of the station car park.

3.4.12 Parking on-street to maximise use of the available space in this location was also noted, which in some cases leads to illegal parking, as demonstrated by Figure 3.4 above.

3.4.13 Parked volumes in Station Approach did not exceed 50% of capacity during the Saturday morning.

Appendix 4 Page 4 and 5 – Stainsby Street and Alexandra Road 3.4.14 Both these streets head north from Station Approach, with Alexandra Road at

the northern end exiting onto London Road by Ocean House. Both were considered to be in the main area of maximum employee/commuter all day parking, especially Alexandra Road which would be under pressure at both ends.

3.4.15 On Friday Stainsby Road was observed to have about 20 out of 25 spacesoccupied throughout most of the day with a mix of approximately 40% resident, 40% commuter and 20% visitor. On Saturday the volume was similar in total and residents still made up 40% with visitors and commuters making up 30% each.

3.4.16 On Friday Alexandra Road has about 25 residents parked throughout the day, with commuters being at 26 from 9:00 am and increasing to 35 at 1 pm before dropping back to 11 at 5:00 pm. Visitor parking makes up an average of 15 and peak occupancy is 80 vehicles parked. Our estimated capacity was 117 but the proposed CPZ capacity for this road is 80, which allows for drive cross overs and additional parking restrictions for safety. The pattern observed shows a decline in resident parking in the morning which is replaced by commuters and visitors and a return after 5:00 pm of residents as both commuters and visitors diminish. Residents returning after 4:00 pm are likely to experience difficulties in parking close to their homes. There are some off-street resident only parkingareas on the west side of Alexandra Road to the north of Hatherley Road. These areas could accommodate significantly more cars than actually use them during the day and it is possible that residents favour parking on-street as this ismore practical, given most of the off street locations are protected by chains to avoid unauthorised use.

Draft

25


3.4.17 Saturday parking on Alexandra Road is primarily resident and visitor with only 15% being classified as commuter.

Appendix 4 Page 6 – Clyde Road 3.4.18 Located to the east of London Road and within a short walk of Heron House,

Ocean House, the station and the town centre. This is a residential street that had been identified as being at capacity by earlier day time occupancy surveywork. Our observations indicated parking was at a maximum between 9:00 amand 1:00 pm when 35 vehicles were observed in a potential 47 capacity.

3.4.19 During observations on Saturday parking never exceeded 24 vehicles the majority of which were residents.

Appendix 4 Page 7 – Kings Road 3.4.20 Kings Road is the primary shopping street in St Leonards and has about sixty 2

hr limited waiting spaces with a no return within 2 hours restriction. Several shops in this area do not open until 10:00 am, but parking commences from 8:00 am and is close to capacity from 10:00 am until about 3:00 pm. After this numbers fall slowly and it is still at 50 vehicles at 5:00pm.

3.4.21 Although enforcement patrols were witnessed on Friday and Saturday, the parking observed shows a significant abuse of the 2 hour maximum waiting limit. About a third of vehicles in Kings Road are parked for more than the 2 hour maximum and 5 cars were parked for more than 8 hours.

3.4.22 About 50% of all visitors that park in Kings Road park there for less than one hour. The ability to get another 30 visitors per hour parked is currently made impossible by the number of vehicles exceeding the legal limit. The Graphs indicate two numbers related to each hour of the day. The lower green number shows the number of vehicles observed that parked for less than two hours i.e. up to the current permitted maximum stay. The red number above indicates the number of vehicles observed that parked for more than two hours i.e. the number of vehicles contravening the permitted maximum.

3.4.23 Other observations that can be attributed to the current abuse of the parking regulations are:

� Vehicles being watched and moved to avoid enforcement action; � Vehicles parking on restricted areas towards the north and south end of

Kings Road due to no other spaces being readily available; � Illegal parking blocking the loading bay to the south of Kings Road; � Loading and unloading taking place from the middle of the road whilst

blocking all other vehicle movements; � Vehicles waiting for vehicles to move out of a parking space; and � Vehicles circling back through Kings Road if a space was not available on

a previous drive through. 3.4.24 Figure 3.5. and 3.6 below indicate the typical problems being faced on Kings

Road on a regular basis

Draft

26


Figure 3.5: Consequence of illegal and poor parking blocking the entrance to Kings road

Figure 3.6: Loading/unloading activity in Kings Road

3.4.25 A similar pattern of behaviour was also observed on Saturday, although the build up of parking was slower than on Friday.

Draft

27


Appendix 4 Page 8 – Norman Road 3.4.26 The Graph shows the results for the eastern half of Norman Road surveyed.

Friday is at capacity from 10:00 am to 1:00 pm, then falls to about 80% of capacity for the rest of the day. Saturday was at capacity at 11:00 am but throughout the remainder of the morning, was only at about 60% of capacity.

3.4.27 Both days show the majority of visits are for 1 hour or less and although not as significant as in Kings Road, there is still a number of vehicles on both days parking in excess of the 2 hour maximum.

Appendix 4 page 9 – North Street 3.4.28 Adjoining London Road from the west, this has a mix of residential and retail

outlets. There are shared use bays with a 2 hour maximum stay except permit holders. This road has been proposed under the CPZ as a permit holders only road.

3.4.29 The Graph shows the parking pattern observed on Friday. Each hour is divided down to show the total occupancy of residents, which at 8:00 am is 15, and the occupancy of visitors by duration of stay, which at 8:00 am was 2. During Fridayfrom 9:00 am to 5:00 pm residents average about 10 spaces of the maximum 22 available. Visitors during this period are slightly higher at about 12, although more than 50% of these are exceeding the 2 hour permitted maximum and parking occasionally exceeds capacity where vehicles were observed parking on no waiting restrictions.

3.4.30 The observations suggest that the opportunity for 10 visitors to park in North Street each day to visit the town will be lost if this street becomes a permit holder only location. It also suggests that demand from permit holders during the day does not exceed 10, so permit holder parking only will leave half of the available parking empty.

3.4.31 The parking is at capacity in North Street, but it is also suffering from problems noted above for Kings Road and Norman Road due to the abuse of the waiting limit and contravention of other parking restrictions.

Occupancy Survey Findings 3.4.32 Many residential streets currently included within the proposed CPZ do not

appear to have a parking capacity problem, even though there are a number of vehicles using the streets to park throughout the working day.

3.4.33 The primary retail streets within the town centre are parked to capacity and this is giving rise to problems of congestion, parking in contravention, loading / unloading problems and a very poor environment for shoppers and visitors.

3.4.34 The single biggest capacity problem in the town centre appears to be vehicles parked in excess of the 2 hour permitted maximum and being able to avoid detection and enforcement.

3.4.35 Most visitors within the 2 hour limit actually visit for less than one hour. A 1 hour limit for the main shopping streets with some free time and some time charged could increase turnover, number of visitors and make enforcement effective

3.4.36 Off street car parks are under utilised. Crystal Square could serve the town better as a longer short stay car park with a 2 or 3 hour maximum. Marina could help to address displaced commuter parking in the town centre by being a long stay car park with a reasonable all day charge.

Draft

28


3.4.37 The area of the proposed CPZ measures will displace significant numbers of employee/commuter parkers, who will be left with very few alternative parking options for all day parking. Observations suggest that a significant proportion of these vehicles could still be accommodated in residential areas outside of the town centre without giving these streets capacity problems.

3.4.38 Some specific localised parking problems currently exist. Some of these have previously been dealt with by introducing localised resident schemes in areas where residents have requested these measures. It is felt that the viability of St Leonards will be seriously damaged if the problems observed and of which most people appear to be aware are not addressed as soon as possible. It must also be recognised that effective measures will displace those currently abusingthe parking restrictions. Some buffer for residents within the vicinity of the town centre and where charged parking is introduced is likely to be required. It is therefore considered advantageous to bring about a gradual change in behaviour by minimising the need for resident measures through restraint on the initial charging, maybe with allowance for tickets to be issued for an initial free period before charges apply.

3.4.39 Also, some local problems may change requiring reconsideration of any measures that had seemed necessary and appropriate. It is apparent that parking pressure during the week to the west of St Leonards is solely due to the Hastings College. Measures may no longer be needed if the college moves.

3.5 Current parking assessment conclusions 3.5.1 Off street parking is significantly under utilised which adds to localised

congestion within the town centre. This congestion is added to further by a lack of available short stay parking spaces, which is possibly more to do with the abuse of the current waiting limit than it is the available number of spaces.

3.5.2 Our understanding of the current situation is that there is not a lack of capacity, it is either charged or slightly further away from where people would like to park. The current restrictions are not enabling enforcement action to be carried out effectively against the contravening vehicles. It appears that this is now common knowledge and people parking in the town centre are either prepared to take a risk, or are prepared to suffer the inconvenience of moving their vehicle throughout the day to evade enforcement.

3.5.3 Current behaviour suggests the demand for legal parking in the primary shopping areas is for short stay visits. A significant proportion of the opportunities for a short stay visit are currently blocked by vehicles parked in excess of 2 hours.

3.5.4 The majority of the area outside of the primary town centre streets has a parkedoccupancy of about 60% with some localised areas closer to capacity. There is evidence of all day parkers using streets surrounding the station and major employment locations, but in most cases this is partly compensated for by residents leaving their parking spaces throughout the day. It is therefore felt that the extent of CPZ measures currently proposed cover a wider area than necessary and do not fully address the short stay parking requirements in the town centre. The CPZ will be effective at displacing long stay parking, but it is felt it is doing this to an extent greater than is necessary. The proposals currently offer very little alternative long stay parking to employees and commuters, although it is felt that provision could be made for these without creating capacity problems.

Draft

29


4. Future parking demand

4.1 Introduction 4.1.1 This section looks at future car parking demand in St Leonards. There are three

possible drivers of increased demand for car parking space:

� General background growth in car ownership� New developments within the town centre � Change in the nature of St Leonards in terms of economic performance

4.2 General background growth4.2.1 At the time of the 2001 population census the number of cars and vans owned

by residents of Central St Leonards ward was 1906. Car ownership per household is one of the lowest in the country. Using the Department for Transport projections, as published in TEMPRO,12 for the growth in car ownership by local authority district we can project forward car ownership in the area.

4.2.2 The Tempro model projects car ownership per household to increase by 1.088% between 2001 and 2010 and 1.137% by 2015. Based on the figure of 1,906 at 2001, this implies that the number of cars within the ward will be 2,074 in 2010 and 2,167 in 2015. This compares with an estimated 2,000 cars at the present time.

4.2.3 A cautious approach would be to assume that all these cars will all be parked on-street. Hence by 2010 an extra 70 vehicles will need to be accommodated rising to 170 by 2015.

4.2.4 Given the starting point represents one of the lowest levels of car ownership per household in the country, it is also necessary to consider a greater than average growth in car ownership that is likely to come about from the successfulregeneration of the area. This has been factored in to the assessment of future parking demand by also considering an increase in car ownership that would arise if car ownership per household in St Leonards increased from 0.59 to 1.0, being the car ownership per household figure for Hastings which has been used as a guide to the likely increase.

4.3 New developments within the town centre 4.3.1 A range of regeneration projects and new developments are either going ahead,

proposed or anticipated to occur in the coming years that will have an impact on car parking within the town centre. Details of these projects have been provided by Hastings BC. Based on the size and nature of the developments we have estimated the number of jobs (based on standard floorspace to job ratios from English Partnerships) and anticipated car ownership/use from TRIPS which is aDfT approved model to determine the number of trips per type of development.

12 The TEMpro program provides access to the national Trip End Model projections of growth in travel demand, and the underlying car ownership and planning data projections.

Draft

30


4.3.2 Tables 4.1 and 4.2 list the relevant projects, the numbers of associated jobs andor housing units and our estimate of the probability that the developments will occur.

Draft

31

St Le

onar

ds P

arkin

g Eco

nomi

c Imp

act S

tudy

Draft

Inter

im R

epor

t

Tabl

e 4.

1:

Empl

oym

ent s

chem

es, l

istin

g th

e nu

mbe

r of j

obs

and

prob

abili

ty o

f occ

urrin

g

Cen

tral

St L

eona

rds

Inve

stm

ents

- Pu

blic

A

nd P

rivat

e - 2

007

/ 20

09

2008

20

09

2010

20

11

2012

20

13

2014

20

15

Prob

abili

tyof

oc

curr

ing

2008

20

09

2010

20

11

2012

20

13

2014

20

15

Jobs

C

entra

l St L

eona

rds

Urb

an R

enai

ssan

ce

Pro

gram

me

25

50

70

70

70

70

70

70

90%

22

.50

45.0

0 63

.00

63.0

0 63

.00

63.0

0 63

.00

63.0

0

Cen

tral S

t Leo

nard

s To

wns

cape

Her

itage

In

itiat

ive

2 (0

7/9)

2 4

6 6

6 6

6 6

90%

1.

80

3.60

5.

40

5.40

5.

40

5.40

5.

40

5.40

Res

tora

tion

of

Chr

istc

hurc

h B

uild

ing

and

re-lo

catio

n of

75+

C

ounc

il S

taff

to th

e ar

ea

Alre

ady

occu

rred

St L

eona

rds

Gar

dens

A

lread

y oc

curr

edM

arin

a P

avili

on

Ref

urbi

shm

ent

10

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

90%

9.

00

16.2

0 16

.20

16.2

0 16

.20

16.2

0 16

.20

16.2

0

Dev

elop

men

t Site

s in

C

entr

al S

t Leo

nard

s -

key

loca

tions

(not

all

appr

oved

pro

posa

ls

Sor

ting

Offi

ce S

ite

3 3

3 3

3 3

25%

0.

75

0.75

0.

75

0.75

0.

75

0.75

C

ryst

al S

quar

e S

ite

130

130

130

130

130

130

20%

26

.00

26.0

0 26

.00

26.0

0 26

.00

26.0

0 A

lpha

Caf

é D

evel

opm

ent S

ite

19

19

19

19

19

20%

3.

80

3.80

3.

80

3.80

3.

80

Ref

urbi

shm

ent o

fC

ongr

egat

iona

l Chu

rch

5 5

5 5

5 20

%

1.00

1.

00

1.00

1.

00

1.00

Tota

l 33

.30

64.8

0 11

1.35

11

6.15

11

6.15

11

6.15

11

6.15

11

6.15

Sou

rce:

Bas

e da

ta H

BC

, pro

ject

ions

CB

Draft

32

St Le

onar

ds P

arkin

g Eco

nomi

c Imp

act S

tudy

Draft

Inter

im R

epor

t

Tabl

e 4.

2:

Hou

sing

sch

emes

, lis

ting

the

num

ber o

f uni

ts a

nd p

roba

bilit

y of

occ

urrin

g

Cen

tral

St

Leon

ards

In

vest

men

ts -

Publ

ic A

nd

Priv

ate

- 200

7 /

2009

2008

20

09

2010

20

11

2012

20

13

2014

20

15

Prob

abili

tyof

oc

curr

ing

2008

20

09

2010

20

11

2012

20

13

2014

20

15

Hou

sing

C

entra

l St

Leon

ards

Hou

sing

R

enov

atio

n G

rant

s - 0

7/09

Ass

umed

no

impa

ct o

n ho

usin

g nu

mbe

rs

Em

pty

Hom

es

Gra

nts

- HB

C

allo

catio

n of

200

K

(07/

09) -

with

the

prio

rity

targ

et a

rea

bein

g C

StL

15

30

45

60

75

90

90

90

90%

13

.50

27.0

0 40

.50

54.0

0 67

.50

81.0

0 81

.00

81.0

0

Cen

tral S

t Le

onar

ds

Tow

nsca

pe

Her

itage

Initi

ativ

e 2

(07/

9)

2 4

6 6

6 6

6 6

90%

1.

80

3.60

5.

40

5.40

5.

40

5.40

5.

40

5.40

Ref

urbi

shm

ent l

ed

Affo

rdab

le H

ousi

ng

(07/

08)

10

20

30

40

40

40

40

40

90%

9.

00

18.0

0 27

.00

36.0

0 36

.00

36.0

0 36

.00

36.0

0

Dev

elop

men

t Si

tes

in C

entr

al S

t Le

onar

ds -

key

loca

tions

(not

all

appr

oved

prop

osal

s C

hape

l Par

k R

oad

Dev

elop

men

t 36

36

36

36

36

36

36

10

0%

36.0

0 36

.00

36.0

0 36

.00

36.0

0 36

.00

36.0

0

Ade

lphi

Hot

el, 3

7-45

War

rior S

quar

e

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

100%

16

.00

16.0

0 16

.00

16.0

0 16

.00

16.0

0 16

.00

Ade

lphi

Hot

el, 3

9-42

War

rior S

quar

e

24

24

24

24

24

24

50%

12

.00

12.0

0 12

.00

12.0

0 12

.00

12.0

0

Sor

ting

Offi

ce S

ite

6 6

6 6

6 6

25%

1.

50

1.50

1.

50

1.50

1.

50

1.50

H

astin

g C

olle

ge

Site

D

evel

opm

ent p

arki

ng n

eeds

ass

umed

to b

e co

ntai

ned

on s

ite

Draft

33

St Le

onar

ds P

arkin

g Eco

nomi

c Imp

act S

tudy

Draft

Inter

im R

epor

t

Cen

tral

St

Leon

ards

In

vest

men

ts -

Publ

ic A

nd

Priv

ate

- 200

7 /

2009

2008

20

09

2010

20

11

2012

20

13

2014

20

15

Prob

abili

tyof

oc

curr

ing

2008

20

09

2010

20

11

2012

20

13

2014

20

15

Cry

stal

Squ

are

Site

60

11

0 16

7 16

7 16

7 16

7 20

%

12.0

0 22

.00

33.4

0 33

.40

33.4

0 33

.40

Alp

ha C

afé

Dev

elop

men

t Site

49

49

49

49

49

20

%

9.80

9.

80

9.80

9.

80

9.80

Sto

ckle

igh

Cou

rt 12

12

12

12

12

12

12

80

%

9.60

9.

60

9.60

9.

60

9.60

9.

60

9.60

To

tal

24.3

0 11

0.20

16

0.00

20

2.30

22

7.20

24

0.70

24

0.70

24

0.70

Sou

rce:

Bas

e da

ta H

BC

and

pro

ject

ions

CB

Draft

34


4.3.3 The TRIPS database provides details on the number of car borne arrivals and departures that can be anticipated during the day and the number of car borne workers and visitors on site at any time. Table 4.3 provides an indication of the number of car parking spaces required given the projected number of new jobsexpected to be accommodated within the town centre over the period 2008 to 2015.

Table 4.3: Car park demand relating to office development

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of jobs 13 26 37 38 38 38 38 38 Car parking spaces per employee 0.518 0.518 0.518 0.518 0.518 0.518 0.518 0.518 Minimum number of car parking spaces required 7 14 19 20 20 20 20 20 Source: CB analysis based on HBC data

4.3.4 The analysis shows that around 20 more car parking places will be required during the day by 2011. In addition some of the development is retail in nature which generates a far higher level of traffic. However, the difficulty with retail provision is that trips are generally to a number of shops and not just one. The number of car borne trips per retail job can be determined from TRIPS as being20. However, these trips are spread over the day and it has been assumed that a person will visit an average of five stores per visit.

Table 4.4: Car park demand relating to additional retail development

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Retail Jobs 20 39 79 83 83 83 83 83 car trips per retail job 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 period over which trips take place – hours

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

number of stores assumed to visit

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

car parking space required 10 19 40 42 42 42 42 42

Source: CB analysis based on HBC data4.3.5 Using these assumptions it is estimated an additional forty car parking places

will be required by 2010.

4.3.6 In addition to the commercial development considerable housing projects are anticipated. Car ownership in central St Leonards is extremely low at 0.59 cars per household compared to an average across Hastings of 1.00 (2001 Census data uprated by Tempro figures). Table 10.5 sets out the number of additional cars assuming car ownership in the new developments is the same as at present in St Leonards and if it rises to the rate for Hastings as a whole.

Draft

35


Table 4.5: Car park demand relating to additional housing development

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Housing units 24 110 164 206 231 245 245 245 Car ownershipper household St Leonards

0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59

Car ownershipper household St Leonards

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Additional cars – St Leonards assumptions

14 65 97 122 136 144 144 144

Additional cars – Hastings assumptions

24 110 164 206 231 245 245 245

Source: CB4.3.7 The Crystal Square development proposed in the master plan would lead to the

loss of the present 30 space car park and its replacement with a 245 space car park. It has been assumed that no car park spaces are provided for any other development.

4.4 Change in the nature of St Leonards economic performance

4.4.1 As mentioned previously car ownership in Central St Leonards is well below the national average. Given its characteristics, town centre location well served by public transport, one would not necessarily expect car ownership to be at the level of the Hastings average even if its economic performance was radically enhanced. A plausible scenario might be that car ownership reaches a point midway between the present level in St Leonards and the Hastings average.

Table 4.6: Possible future car ownership levels in St Leonards

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015Car ownership St Leonards

2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700

Source: CB

4.5 Future supply and demand car parking spaces 4.5.1 The analysis done by SDG showed that there were nearly 900 available spaces

at night that were not being used. We have used this figure to identify for 2010 and 2015 whether we would expect pressure on car parking space for residents under the most pessimistic assumptions. That is, no car parking is provided for any proposed residential development and all additional cars are parked on-street.

4.5.2 Under the business as usual scenario, Table 4.7, the extra car growth can be readily accommodated. That does not mean that on certain streets parking will not become more difficult but residents should still be able to find a parking space within their locality.

Draft

36


Table 4.7: Spare car parking supply, business as usual

2010 2015Present spare on-street capacity

900 900

Increase car ownership 70 170New development, St Leonards level of car ownership

97 144

Remaining spare capacity 730 580Source: CB analysis based on HBC data

4.5.3 In the enhanced economic growth scenario, where car ownership levels rise significantly then by 2015 there is a case of excess demand for on-street parking. Even allowing for 150 spaces in the proposed Crystal Square car park being for residents the pressure on parking will still be severe.

Table 4.8: Spare car parking supply, enhanced economic growth

2010 2015Present spare on-street capacity

900 900

Increase car ownership to higher level

200 700

New development, Hastings level of car ownership

164 245

Remaining spare capacity 530 -50Source: CB analysis based on HBC data

4.5.4 Day time parking demand is projected to rise due to the additional retail and office developments and the proposed redevelopment of Crystal Square car park. However, this will be offset by the proposed new multi storey car park. It has been assumed that up to 100 places would be available for non-residents.

Table 4.9: Spare car parking supply, enhanced economic growth

2010 2015Increased demand from commercial development

19 20

Increased demand from retail development

40 42

Loss of Crystal Square car park

30 30

New multi storey -100 -100Balance 11 8Source: CB analysis based on HBC data

4.5.5 The analysis shows that all the additional parking provision arising from commercial and retail developments can be accommodated assuming the multi-storey car park is built. That is, the developments will not worsen the present parking situation.

4.6 Future parking demand assessment conclusions 4.6.1 On the existing base, the projected increase in parking demand is unlikely to

cause any significant capacity problems by 2010. If we assume an increase in car ownership to the levels currently experience by Hastings as a result of the regeneration in St Leonards, parking pressure will develop by 2015.

Draft

37


4.6.2 It is believed that measures similar to the currently proposed CPZ would be appropriate at the volumes of parking demand expected in 2015, but are more than is required to manage current parking, or demand arising in the medium term. The majority of additional visitors to the town centre can be accommodated in the foreseeable future provided the plans to develop Crystal Square are progressed and include at least 100 spaces for public use.

Draft

38


5. Consultation

5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 This section presents the findings of three surveys that were undertaken for this

study. These covered shoppers/visitors to St Leonards town centre, employees in the town centre and people seen parking their car in the area. These surveys can only ever give an indication of the behaviour of individuals and are subject to various biases. However, they provide a useful overview of peoples’ behaviour and perceptions.

5.1.2 A wide range of stakeholders were also invited to comment on the issuescovered by the study. In addition a dozen businesses were offered the opportunity to put their views in a face to face interview.

5.2 Visitor survey 5.2.1 The results of the visitor survey are markedly different than the ESCC survey

reported previously in that a far higher percentage of people interviewed came by car.

5.2.2 This appears to be due to the very different travelling patterns on weekdays and Saturdays. Table 5.1 sets out a summary of the proportion of visitors by mode on weekdays and weekends. Three totals are provided. The first, an unweighted one, just combines the surveys undertaken on a weekday and weekend. The weighted total assumes the patterns found on Tuesday are the same for other weekdays and then combines the total for weekdays with a Saturday assuming that the volume of visitors on Saturday are the same as the remainder of the week. The third is the same as the second but assumes that 80% more people visit on a Saturday than a weekday. This reflects the footfall pattern in Hastings.

Table 5.1: Visitors to St Leonards by mode

Bus % Car % Walk % Other %Total unweighted 11 45 39 5 Total weighted – Saturday equal weight to a weekday

12 38 45 5

Total weighted – Saturday weight 80% higher than a weekday

12 41 42 5

Weekday 13 34 48 5 Saturday 9 60 27 5

Source: CB surveys 5.2.3 The ESCC study13 found 22% of visitors arrived by car and 57% walked. The

figures from our survey on a weekday are 34% arriving by car and 48% walking and a switch on the Saturday with 60% arriving by car and 27% walking. We are unaware as to why these two sets of data vary to this extent, although there arelikely to be factors such as sample size, different dates, different times of day and weather, all of which could influence the finding.

13 ESCC Central St Leonards Shopping Survey – September 2006

Draft

39


5.2.4 Using the weighted results suggests that nearly half of all visitors to St Leonards town centre walk, around 40% arrive by car, just over 10% come by bus and a small percentage either cycle, use a motorbike, train or taxi.

5.2.5 Respondents were asked how much they spent. While spending was higher on Saturday across all modes the sample sizes become to small to place to much reliance on these differences and only overall spend by mode is quoted. Table 8.2 sets out the proportion of total spend arising from each mode under the different weighting for Saturdays. The differences are negligible and therefore it is reasonable to state that spending in the town centre is 60% car borne, 30% from those who walk and 10% from bus passengers.

Table 5.2: Spend by mode

Average spend per visit

Proportion of total weekly spend – Saturday equal

Proportion of total weeklyspend- Saturday 80%

higher week Bus £19 9% 9% Car £40 64% 62% Walk £15 25% 27% Other £10 2% 2%

5.2.6 Bus users, walkers and those who arrive by other modes all live locally, 85% report living in St Leonards. The main reason why they use the town centre isthat it is close to home. Car users are on the other hand are far more dispersed with only 50% reporting that they live in the town.

5.2.7 With regard to ease of parking there are clear differences between weekday and the weekend. On Saturday’s only a quarter of visitors could park easily near where they wanted to be. Half responded that it took them a while to find a space close to where they wanted, which suggests they were cruising for a parking space, and a quarter reported they had to park further away from where they wanted to be. On weekdays drivers reported it was much easier to park where they wanted to be, although again nearly 40% of drivers took a while to find a place.

Table 5.3: Ease of finding a parking space

Total % Sat % Tue %Easy to park close to destination 39 26 58 Had to park some distance away from destination 10 14 7 Took a while to find a parking space close to destination

45 50 39

Took a while to find a parking space and had to park some distance away from destination

6 10 0

Source: CB surveys 5.2.8 The survey’s finding suggests that as discussed previously cruising for parking

is an issue in the town centre causing congestion and delays to traffic. Over a third of drivers parked in Kings Road with other drivers parking on-street throughout the wider town centre. No-one reported using the pay and display car parks, which are expensive compared to the on-street free parking alternative. Those visiting on business and able to re-claim parking costs may be drawn to the off-street car parks given the relative ease of finding spaces in these locations.

5.2.9 Asked what they would do if free parking was no longer available, exactly half of respondents stated they would pay to park, either on-street, or in the pay and display car parks. Over a quarter stated they would go elsewhere. Of those who stated a location the majority stated they would go to Hastings. As Hastings hasa CPZ this would require them to pay to park. So either they would combine such a trip with an existing trip or they are prepared to pay for the much greaterretail offer available in Hastings but not for that in St Leonards. Nearly 20%

Draft

40


reported that they would continue to come into St Leonards but less frequently and perhaps not by car.

5.3 Parking survey 5.3.1 The parking survey was aimed at people observed parking their car around the

station area and Warrior Square. The vast majority of parkers were short stay, two thirds parking for an hour or less.

Table 5.4: Length of period parked

Length of parking period Percentage15 mins 1230 mins 171 hours 341-3 hours 36All day 2

Source: CB surveys 5.3.2 A quarter reported being able to park where they wanted, nearly 20% said they

had to park some distance from where they wanted to be and nearly 60% statedthat it took a while to find a place where they wanted to park.

5.3.3 If free on-street parking was no longer available 60% of respondents stated they would pay to park either on-street or in the pay and display car park. Nearly a quarter would still come to town and pay but come less often. Only 10% would go elsewhere.

5.4 Employee survey5.4.1 The findings of the employee survey were markedly different from the findings

of the 2001 Census. The census reported around half of workers drove to work. The findings of our survey are that 68% of people drive to work, while walkers made up 15% of workers compared to the Census’ 23%.

5.4.2 The survey highlighted some of the main problems affecting parking in the town centre. A third of those who drove to work reported that they parked their cars inthe two hour parking bays on Kings Road and Normans Road and just kept moving them within those streets during the day to circumvent present parking controls. So one of the reasons why shoppers report not being able to easily park where they want is because business owners and their employees park their own vehicles in such places. Only 2% of interviewees reported parking in their employers’ car park.

5.4.3 In terms of the ease of finding a parking space only a quarter stated it was not aproblem. Another quarter could find a parking place close to where they wantedto be but it took a while. While a half had to park some distance from where they wanted to be.

Table 5.5: Ease of finding a parking space, proportion stating

TotalEasy to park close to destination 25Had to park some distance away from destination 17Took a while to find a parking space close to destination 26Took a while to find a parking space and had to park some distance away from destination

32

Source: CB surveys

Draft

41


5.4.4 If free on-street parking was no longer available, respondents’ views were very varied. Almost 40% said they would pay and a quarter would park outside the zone and walk. Around 10% would switch to walking, a similar proportion wouldhope to obtain a business permit while 7% stated they would give up working inthe town centre.

5.4.5 Looking where people come from and their modes of transport does highlight some opportunities for mode shift. Within TN37 almost as many people walk to work as travel.

Table 5.6: Method of travelling to work

Residence in TN37 Residence in TN34Walk 12Car 14 13Bus 1 5Train 1

Source: CB surveys

5.5 Stakeholder consultation 5.5.1 Some fifty organisations were invited to submit evidence about the wider

economic and social impacts that the proposed CPZ might have on St Leonards. In addition a dozen businesses were offered the opportunity of a face to face meeting to discuss their concerns.

5.5.2 The comments made by respondents are wide and varied and are summarised briefly below.

� St Leonards town centre is performing poorly as witnessed by the high proportion of vacant shops and high turnover of stores

� The retail offer is not strong enough to continue to attract car borne shoppers if they have to pay to park

� On-street parking around St Leonards Warrior Square railway station is recognised as causing a problem to some residents

� 710 parking tickets were issued in the last financial year for parkingoffences in Warrior Square, Norman Road, London Road and Kings Road

� The impact of a CPZ on retailers depends on the nature of the servicesoffered. For example, one store providing high cost services stated it would possibly pay its customers’ parking charges.

� A local surgery reported that it had lost three key members of staff, who all cited the proposed introduction of parking fees as a reason for looking for alternative employment.

� interviews with businesses resulted in statements that between 20-100% of customers arrived by car

� Lack of facilities for motorbikes was regarded as a problem for some � Parking is perceived as being a problem sometimes in Kings Road with

the two hour parking limited perceived as being to long� Parking on Saturdays is not perceived as such a great a problem as

during the week � Where customer or staff off street parking is available it is often

underused due to customers not being aware of it or preferring to park on-street outside the store

� Faster turn round of parking is recognised as being required � Present parking restrictions are perceived as being widely flaunted, with

vehicles being moved around between restricted parking areas � The closure of Hastings College will significantly reduce parking pressure

in the western area of the proposed CPZ

Draft

42


� Existing enhancements and road safety measures are leading to a reduction in car parking spaces with a negative impact on businesses

� General concern among convenience stores about the potential impact of the proposed Asda at Silverhill

� One specialist store was able to show that only 15% of its turnover arose from the local area

� One major employer has 30 spaces for 130 staff, staff have problems parking

� Local bus services suffer from road congestion and illegal parking, CPZ in Hastings has assisted bus services to operate more smoothly there

� Significant requests for specific organisation parking spaces5.5.3 As with the previous consultation on the proposed CPZ, responses are

conflicting. This is partly due to some being perception rather than evidence based, the other is that two businesses on the same street can have very different parking requirements for themselves and their customers.

5.6 Consultation findings 5.6.1 There are a number of points arising out of the consultation, which are

consistent with the evidence from other sources, including:

� Parking in some locations causes problems for residents � Parking restrictions are currently abused� A faster turnover of parked vehicles would be advantageous

5.6.2 One inconsistency is the perception of parking on Saturdays. The occupancy surveys and observations between a Friday and Saturday indicated that parkingpressure was less serve on Saturday than during the week, although responses to surveys suggested more people find parking on Saturdays difficult with more taking a while to find parking and more finding it difficult to park close to their destination. Possibly, the majority of visitors on Saturday are targeting the shops which concentrates parking demand on the town centre to a greaterextent than during the week. With a lower density of commuter parking on Saturdays, others are likely to perceive finding parking easier, especially on streets surrounding the centre.

5.6.3 We feel that the key findings are that some 60% of spend in the town centre isderived from car borne visitors and only 50% of these responded that they would be prepared to pay if free parking was no longer available. Even allowing for the fact that not all would necessarily change their behaviour as they have suggested, given charges apply in many of the alternative locations and there may be added travel or inconvenience involved, it still suggests that charging would have a significant adverse impact on trade In St Leonards.

Draft

43


6. Alternative transport services

6.1 Bus services 6.1.1 Many respondents stated that car access was essential due to poor public

transport services to the town.

6.1.2 Whether bus services meet peoples’ needs depends on where they live but there would appear to be a lack of knowledge about the extent and frequency of services. In summary the following are the main routes serving the town

6.1.3 20, 20A, 21, 21A, 22 and 22A each operate every 30 minutes on the central core between Silverhill, St Leonards, and Hastings, providing 12 buses an hour on this section between 7am-6pm.

6.1.4 These services also provide around six buses an hour to Hollington and Ore

6.1.5 98 and 99, provide five buses an hour between Hastings, St Leonards and Bexhill.

6.1.6 The County Council and Borough Council has worked with Stagecoach in Hastings over the last five years to develop and implement the Hastings Quality Bus Partnership (QBP). This has been successful in meeting or exceeding a number of its targets. The Action Plan has been reviewed and recently updated, including the introduction of the Punctuality Improvement Partnership.

6.1.7 There have been increases in passenger journey numbers over the last three tofour years, which is against the trend for the rest of the county, or the country. This underlying growth has been a result of the QBP and the investment in bus infrastructure, service provision and the improving quality of service.

6.1.8 Stagecoach, the bus service provider commented that a reduction in congestion and better parking enforcement within Hastings helped them to achieve improvements in reliability and punctuality.

6.1.9 Single fares are 85p, a weekly pass is £9 a week covering St Leonards and Hastings and £11 to cover Bexhill as well.

6.2 Train services 6.2.1 Regular train services operate between Eastbourne, Tunbridge Wells and

Ashford. A weekly season ticket between Battle and St Leonards costs £8.20.

6.2.2 Commuting figures and observational evidence suggests many travel by train to and from St Leonards Warrior Square Station. They are currently greeted on arrival with the prospect of negotiating the traffic and parking congestion along Kings Road as represented by Figure 6.1

Draft

44


Figure 6.1: Town Centre approach from Warrior Square Station

6.2.3 The provision of free on-street parking for employees provides a major disincentive to use alternative transport modes where they are available.

Draft

45


7. Economic impact

7.1 Current CPZ proposal background 7.1.1 The Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (County of

East Sussex) (Borough of Hastings) Order 1999 was made in May 1999. This enabled Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) to be introduced in Hastings. As part of this process a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) was introduced to implement residents’ parking zones and on-street pay and display areas. Central St Leonards was included in the CPZ at the original designstage. However, Members resolved to defer the introduction of the CPZ in St Leonards due to representations from both residents and businesses.

7.1.2 There is a perception that commuter/displaced parking has been increasing within the central St Leonards area since the introduction of the CPZ in Hastings leading to pressure on available parking and concerns from residents and businesses alike over the lack of parking space.

7.1.3 A number of regeneration and development proposals are being pursued aspart of the Central St Leonards Renewal Strategy. These will place further pressure on parking provision. The council therefore re-visited the proposals for the extension of the CPZ into the centre of St Leonards.

7.2 Proposed CPZ parking management7.2.1 The proposed CPZ plan as presented by Hastings Borough Council is included

here at Appendix 5 for background information. The CPZ scheme is well documented and it is therefore proposed to concentrate on the specific findings and feed back from the current study, rather than the detailed proposals.

7.2.2 The aims of the CPZ are stated to be:

� Create more effective parking for local people and businesses� Make it easier for shoppers to park near shops � Allow residents and visitors to park near their homes � Increase space for business deliveries and customers � Make it easier for buses to move around the area so they become an

attractive alternative to the car 7.2.3 Any scheme of parking management will need to be a compromise, which will

not satisfy all people at all times. The study has been informed of specific requirements that the current proposals are not felt to address. These include:

� Possible loss of employees no longer able to park close to their place of employment;

� Loss of custom and trade from charged parking; � Permit holder only parking in shared use bays being limited to a popular

time for visiting and shopping in the middle of the day; � Insufficient provision for motor cycle parking; � Provision for those attending clinics and surgeries; and � Difficulties in parking to attend churches and religious ceremonies.

7.2.4 These concerns have to be considered in terms of the parking measures being proposed, the charges and costs related to these measures and the likely changes to behaviour that might occur as a result of the changes. We need to determine whether the proposed CPZ would have a positive or negative impact on the vitality, quality of life and economy of the Central St Leonards area.

Draft

46


7.2.5 This study has helped to identify the current parking capacity, occupancy levels, parking behaviour and some of the problems to be addressed. It has also looked at the probable growth of parking demand arising from the development and regeneration of the area. The planned improvement in retail offer, employment opportunities and leisure facilities will generate higher volumes of visitors to St Leonards. Whether these trips are by public transport, on foot, by car or by other means of transport there will be a need for improved parking management to avoid congestion acting as a major constraint to future growth.

7.2.6 The proposed scheme aims to give preference to shoppers, visitors and business users in the town centre and to residents in residential areas. It introduces pay and display bays and further limits all day parking in the town centre.

7.2.7 It is estimated that the number of kerbside parking spaces available within the proposed CPZ boundary would be 3,168 spaces. Some of these spaces would be lost due to the application of safety measures principally at road junctions. Following wide spread public consultation the preferred option for a CPZ in St Leonards would result in 821 residents only parking bays, 1,777 shared use bays and 539 pay and display bays.

7.2.8 The shared use bays allow free parking for visitors and shoppers except between 11.00 and 14.00 when a permit would be required. This is to prevent all day commuter parking in these spaces.

7.3 Proposed CPZ charges and management costs 7.3.1 Hastings Borough Council would like to ensure that any parking management

measures introduced do not create a financial burden on the authority. The business plan for the CPZ proposals includes the following operation and proposed charges:

- Parking controls operating from 9.00 to 18.00 Monday to Saturday - Pay and display 30p a half hour but with a minimum 10p charge for

a 10 minute stay- Maximum stay of two hours in the main shopping areas increasing

to four hours in areas such as Warrior Square, six hours in some seafront areas and a limited amount of all day charged parking (£2.00 per day) near the railway station.

- Resident Exclusive Permit (first vehicle): £52.00 a year- Resident Exclusive Permit (second vehicle): £95.00 a year - Resident Shared Permit (first vehicle): £25.00 a year - Resident Shared Permit (second vehicle): £70.00 a year - Resident Visitors Permit (Scratch cards): £6.00 (book of 10) 2 hour

permits- Resident Visitors Permit (Scratch cards): £15.00 (book of 10) 5

hour permits - Business Permit: £200 a year

7.3.2 In addition there will be income received from the pay and display parking introduced and additional receipts from parking penalties issued for contravention to the new restrictions imposed.

7.3.3 The authority will also incur additional operational expenses to undertake:

- Permit administration - Pay and display cash collection - Pay and display maintenance - Enforcement, collections and adjudication - Signs and lines maintenance

Draft

47


- Supplies and services

7.3.4 A contingency of about 10% of expenses has also been allowed for. It is estimated by the business plan that the CPZ would generate an operational surplus in a full year of just under £100,000. There are also start-up costs required to implement the scheme. These are estimated to be some £370,000. It is assumed that the surplus will be required to pay back the start-up costs, but there is no indication as to how this surplus will be used after this has been achieved.

7.3.5 The proposed charges will effectively decrease the net income available for residents and visitors paying for parking to spend elsewhere and will therefore have a negative impact on the local economy. This negative impact must be seen in the context of the economic benefits that will be derived from the regeneration projects. These will be improving the environment generally, adding to the retail, leisure, employment and tourist attraction of St Leonardsand increasing shopper and visitor demand for parking. It is whether the parkingmanagement measures proposed represent the best possible support to these economic benefits to help outweigh the economic costs of their introduction?

7.4 Economic Impact7.4.1 This section brings together an assessment of the economic impact of the

proposed CPZ for St Leonards. This assessment is a forecast, that is, it is a prediction of what we believe will occur based on the information provided to us or collected by us during the course of the study and our professional judgement based on experience elsewhere. There will be impacts of the proposals in the wider area, these are not taken into consideration. For example, the operation of a CPZ could lead to additional employment of parkingattendants who may be local residents, but there is no guarantee that this will occur. Any profits made by the CPZ will be reinvested in transport but again there is no guarantee that such investments will benefit local residents. Any retail spend lost or gained in St Leonards as a result of the proposal will be virtually matched by some gain or loss elsewhere. There are also disbenefits to car borne commuters, however, it is assumed that these mainly come from outside the area and are not considered.

7.4.2 In assessing the economic impact consideration needs to be given as to who gains and by how much and who looses and by how much.

7.4.3 In any assessment various assumptions have to be made and these are set out in the text. The proposals are assessed against a do nothing situation.

Do nothing 7.4.4 St Leonards town centre in terms of performance is relatively stagnated. Over

the last three years there has been little change in the proportion of units that are vacant and little change in the nature and quality of the retail offer. The do nothing scenario assumes that this will continue.

7.4.5 There is also usually no shortage of parking spaces within the town centre, its just that the readily available parking spaces have to be paid for and visitors on the whole are reluctant to pay. On weekdays nearly 60% of motorists visiting the town centre reported no problem parking where they wanted to. On Saturday only a quarter reported such easy parking and a quarter stated they had to park some distance from where wanted to be.

Draft

48


7.4.6 The congestion on Saturdays may be putting some car drivers off from visiting the town centre but probably less so on weekdays. The additional developments proposed for the town centre will increase the overall pressure on parking and road congestion.

7.4.7 Given that paid for parking is available then those who are put off from visiting the town centre are likely to spend less than average. If the same proportion of drivers who presently find it difficult to park on Saturdays and have to park some distance away from where they want to be are discouraged from travellingto St Leonards and they spend half the average amount spent by car drivers then the loss of spending in St Leonards is in the order of £300,000-345,00014 a year. As developments in the area increase this figure will probably increase byaround 5% a year,

7.4.8 One of the key measures proposed for Kings Road is to improve theenvironment for pedestrians and reduce parking spaces by approximately 24 spaces. However it is planned to replaced these losses by the provision of approximately 33 additional parking spaces around Warrior Square Gardens byintroducing echelon parking bays. At present half the car parking spaces in Kings Road are taken up by long term parkers. If this level of illegal parking continues and half of the displaced drivers no longer visit St Leonards then the loss of revenue is projected to be in the order of £252,000 a year.15

7.4.9 In summary the present situation, in conjunction with the reduction of car parking spaces in Kings Road is estimated to cost the town centre economy around £300,000-£345,000 + £252,000 = £552,000-£597,000 a year.

7.5 Economic costs of CPZ as proposed 7.5.1 The economic costs of the proposals to St Leonards are:

� Additional expenses incurred by St Leonards’ residents � Potential loss of income to retailers and service providers due to parking

costs � Potential loss to businesses due to loss of employees arising from

parking charges

Additional expenses incurred by St Leonards’ residents 7.5.2 There are three main additional expenses for local residents. The costs of

resident permits, pay and display parking charges and penalty charges.

7.5.3 The cost of residents’ permits has been projected by the council to raise £47,055. This is a direct income loss to residents. Pay and display income is projected to raise £100,000 a year. A third of car drivers visiting the town centrelive within 2 miles and are assumed therefore to be St Leonards’ residents. Assuming this figure will fall, due to mode shift to 25% this will be a cost of £25,000 to residents. Penalty charge income is £78,000, again 25% is assumed to come from local residents, equivalent to £20,000.

7.5.4 Total revenue loss to St Leonards' residents is therefore estimated to be £90,000 a year.

14 10% of Saturday drivers find it difficult to find a car parking space – Saturday car borne spending £6-6.9m, but assume average spend by discouraged drivers half the average: £6m x 10% = £600,00 x 50% - £300.000; £6.9m x 10% = £690,000 x 50% = £345,000 15 24 spaces lost in Kings Road, 12 used by visitors/shoppers half of whom are nor prepared to be displaced further away at £20 spend (half average as lower spenders more likely to bediscouraged)for 7 hours a day (average 1hr stay), 300 days a year:12 x 50% = 6 x £40 x 50% x 7 x 300 = £252,000

Draft

49


Loss of income to St Leonards town centre. 7.5.5 St Leonards’ retail offer is weak. The Hastings retail study estimated St

Leonards’ turnover at £27.6m in 2005 with a net floor space figure of 18,131sqm.

7.5.6 The shopper/visitor survey undertaken for this study suggests that around 60% of spending in the town centre arises from car drivers. The same surveysuggests that 75% of those car drivers will continue to go to St Leonards if charges are introduced. However one sixth of drivers will go in less frequently and almost a quarter will go elsewhere.

7.5.7 Table 5.2 earlier provided two different scenarios for car borne spending depending on assumptions used as to the number of people shopping on a weekday compared to a weekend. This is important as the surveys showed the mode of transport used is markedly different.

7.5.8 A detailed breakdown of the retail loss is shown in Appendix 5. In very broad terms the potential loss would be:

Current spend attributed to car drivers £27.6m x 64%16 = £17.7m Continued spending if charging introduced: Car drivers still visiting £17.7m x 60% = £ 10.6m Spend from drivers visiting less often £17.7m x 20% x 50% = £ 1.8m

Potential loss of spending £17.7m-£10.6m- £1.8m = £ 5.3m 7.5.9 It is likely that those most discouraged from visiting St Leonards are those who

are spending least, that is, the cost of parking is a significant proportion of their total spend. If it is assumed that those discouraged from visiting St Leonards spend half the average of all motorists then the loss of retail spend would be inthe order of £2.8m-3.0m under the two different scenarios in relation to Saturday visits.

Additional Cost To St Leonards’ Businesses 7.5.10 The business case assumes that 16 business permits will be issued. Based on

the survey evidence this would appear to be low. Even so the annual cost to businesses will be £3,200 a year.

7.5.11 The surveys undertaken have highlighted that some employees may considergiving up work in the town centre if they were unable to park for free. There is a cost to employers of having to recruit and train staff and there may also bedifficulties in recruiting staff. This is a one cost that would be incurred during the first year of operation of the scheme. Assuming that only half those car drivers who said they would give up work in the town centre actually did so as a result of the introduction of the CPZ, this would result in 35 people changing jobs. Given the nature of the jobs in the town centre we have taken the cost of this as being equivalent to one week’s wage per person recruited. This equatesto £13,000.

7.6 Economic benefits 7.6.1 The main economic benefits arising as a result from the introduction of a CPZ

are

� Faster turnover of parking spaces allowing more shoppers to use the town centre

16 Weighted Saturday percentage – See detail in Appendix 5

Draft

50


� Congestion relief on the road network due to fewer people cruising for parking

� Time savings for St Leonards residents who can find a parking space more easily

Gain of Income to St Leonards Town Centre. 7.6.2 The surveys demonstrate parking is difficult in the town centre for many visitors.

It is clear that part of the problem is due to abuse of the present parking regime. By reducing such abuses on-street car parking will become easier helping to attract new business. However, it should be noted that paid for car parking is generally readily available and while the proposals have a slightly lower charge than the car parks it is difficult to envisage a significant increase in volume as a result of this change.

7.6.3 It has therefore been assumed that an increase of 5% of car trips from their new lower level is achieved. This can only be an assumption, based on the number of present visitors who have difficulties in finding free parking. This leads to additional spend of £620,00017 in the town centre by car drivers who can now more easily visit the town centre.

Congestion relief 7.6.4 Cars cruising for parking and badly parked vehicles cause delays for other road

users. The extent of these delays are very difficult to determine. However, if 1,000 vehicles made a 1 minute saving a day for 300 days a year the economicbenefit would be in the order of £120,000 a year.

Journey time savings to St Leonards residents 7.6.5 In parts of the proposed CPZ residents are unable to park close to their homes

at certain times. Standard transport economics values time savings at the rate of roughly 10p a minute. If 100 people were to save 5 minutes once a weekthen the value of such savings would be £2,500.

7.7 Balance of costs and benefits 7.7.1 The costs and benefits to St Leonards town centre are summarised in table 7.1.

They show substantial disbenefits of around £2.2m-2.3m a year to the local economy.

7.7.2 There are considerable uncertainties about this projection but even if the disbenefits are halved and the benefits doubled it would still be a marginal scheme in economic terms.

17 Lower car borne spend = £27.6 x 64% =£17.7m less £5.3m = £12.4m x 5% = £620,000

Draft

51


Table 7.1: Economics costs and benefits

Additional costs to residents 90,000Loss of income to town centre 2,800,000- 3,000,000Additional costs to businesses 3,200Sub total 2,893,200-3,003,000Gain of income to town centre 620,000Congestion relief 120,000Journey time savings 2,500Sub total 742,500Total disbenefit 2,150,700-2,260,500

7.8 Options

No change 7.8.2 Consultation to date and evidence gathered for this study suggests this is not a

viable option. The levels of congestion in the town centre and the abuse of existing restrictions creates a situation that is not attractive to users and has a potential negative impact on business. Growing car ownership and regeneration proposals will also lead to an increase in parking pressures. The economic disbenefit of doing nothing will be a failure to achieve the full economic benefits expected to arise from the regeneration programme as well as losing out on anyeconomic benefits accruing to alternative parking management measures that address the existing parking problems and improve trade. The cost of doing nothing is estimated at around £600,000 (see 7.4.9 above) a year which will increase year on year.

CPZ as proposed 7.8.3 It is evident to date that there is significant resistance to the CPZ proposals,

although there are areas where there is significant support. Some steps have been taken to date to accommodate concerns within the existing plans – the provision of long stay pay and display around Warrior Square station and 6 hourpay and display in locations popular for leisure or tourist activities. It is however considered that the financial costs of the current proposals are likely to have a negative economic impact on the viability of Central St Leonards in the order of £2.2-£2.3m . This impact will decline year on year as the congestion benefits grow in value terms and additional parking demand arises from developments.

CPZ as proposed Monday to Friday only 7.8.4 The analysis undertaken shows that car borne shoppers make up a larger

proportion of visitors on Saturday than a weekday. Commuter parking is also reduced on Saturday leading to less pressure in certain areas of the town centre. If the CPZ was restricted to weekdays only its impact would be reduced by around £1.1-£1.2m a year. Overall there would still be a significant disbenefit in the order of £1m a year. Again this impact will decline year on year as the congestion benefits grow in value terms and additional parking demand arises from developments.

Draft

52


Alternative parking management measures 7.8.5 The principle of a controlled parking zone (CPZ) is to introduce a default

restriction to waiting over a geographic area bounded by zone entry/exit signs that state the default restriction in effect throughout the zone to motoristsentering. They were introduced to alleviate the requirement to sign every length of the default restriction, thereby reducing signing clutter. They may be associated with an area of residential parking, paid on street parking or both, but this is generally due to the fact that restrictions need to be introduced throughout a zone to prevent parking in places other than the permitted parking bays.

7.8.6 It is felt that the grounds and need for improved parking management in St Leonards has been firmly established on the basis of the evidence presentedwithin this report. It is however also felt that the scale of the proposed CPZ measures will be damaging to St Leonards economy given its current weakposition and equally, to allow the current parking behaviour to continue will also be damaging to the existing economy and will reduce the potential benefits likely to arise over time from the regeneration programme.

7.8.7 New parking management measures are therefore required and it is probably not important from a practical point of view whether these are called a CPZ, or just alternative parking management measures.

7.8.8 It is noted that there are already parking management measures within St Leonards where intrusion from visitor/commuter parking has caused problems previously. There are resident parking schemes in The Mount, Zone K and Zone A. There are also 2 hour limited waiting measures to provide short stay parking and a turnover of vehicles on street in and around the town centre.

7.8.9 Whereas the resident parking measures can be effective and enforced through the display of the permit, the 2 hour limited waiting is very difficult and time consuming to enforce. This can be rectified by the issue of a parking ticket to allow a fixed period of parking to be displayed in the vehicle window. The provision and maintenance of equipment to dispense tickets and the costs of parking enforcement will need to be recouped, but the charging should be sensitive to the current weak trading position.

7.8.10 Pay and display parking equipment can accommodate an initial uncharged period and the requirement to enter part of a vehicles registration. The inclusion of a sequential ticket number will also detect tickets being obtained repeatedly to avoid charging. These measures would go a long way to ensuring that short stay parking is less abused without necessarily deterring those popping into the shops for a few items. The tickets would immediately make enforcement more effective to help ensure a turnover of vehicles within the time limit.

7.8.11 It is also felt that the majority of the retail offer currently is unlikely to give rise to extended shopping visits. We noted that the majority of short stays in Kings Road and Norman Road are currently one hour. Although there is currently almost half of parkers staying for more than 2 hours in Kings Road, it is felt these are more likely to be employees and traders than shoppers. It may therefore be very beneficial to have some 1 hour on-street limited parking in the most popular locations within the town centre, with maybe Crystal Square car park also being restricted to a 2 or 3 hour maximum. This enables Crystal Square and the locations around the town centre to still accommodate 2 or 3 hour visits, but also getting the maximum turnover of short stay visitors to be accommodated closest to the shops.

7.8.12 The current limited waiting and the new additional parking within Warrior Square should be given over to a similar pay and display arrangement to that

Draft

53


suggested for kings Road, with maybe a maximum of 2 hours to allow for the fact this is slightly further from the shops. It is proposed the remainder of Warrior Square would need to be resident permit holders.

7.8.13 Other streets around the town centre should be considered as to whether residents parking is necessary, but the use of shared use in preference to permit holder only will help maximise visitor space and keep down costs for residents. In some cases it may be better to do this after the initial implementation of the new measures when the extent of displacement will be more apparent. The area to the West of Central St Leonards, particularly the area around Hastings College would also benefit from a review after the college moves.

7.8.14 The current proposal to have all day parking meters in and around the station should be retained at say £2.00 per day, with a resident permit scheme in the adjoining streets. Consideration could be given to the resident only period being restricted to 1 hour at a different time of day in different streets. This would still deter all day parking but create more convenience for visitors, especially around the mid-day shopping peak period.

7.8.15 It is currently apparent that there are few practical alternatives to on-street parking available to anyone dependent upon their car to travel to work or the station. If there were under utilised long stay car parks or a park and ride scheme serving the Central St Leonards area, it would seem more appropriate to remove all commuter parking opportunities in favour of these facilities beingused. Subject to the proposed development of the Crystal Square car park area, there appear to be few options for increasing parking supply. It is felt that consideration could be given to making Marina car park and St Margaret’s Road car park, or a significant proportions of these long stay car parks. It is believed that this would significantly increase patronage and the transaction volume at a lower charge would compensate for the few higher tariff transaction that would be lost.

7.8.16 These changes would lead to costs on residents of around £20,000 a year in additional parking charges and about £10,000 for some additional resident permit schemes, but it is envisaged all the benefits could be retained of some £750,000 giving a net economic gain of £720,000. Because free parking is still available to those who do not wish to pay, it is assumed that there is no loss ofretail spend as a result of these changes.

7.9 Option Conclusions 7.9.1 The economic costs associated with the CPZ as proposed, or a CPZ effective

throughout Monday to Friday, will outweigh the potential benefits that can be derived from the parking management measures proposed.

7.9.2 It is not considered a viable option to do nothing. There are obvious problems ofcongestion and a shortage of short term parking in the town centre. However, having said this, there is also capacity available within Crystal Square car park, Marina car park and many adjoining roads a short walk from the town centre, if demand for parking had to be meet.

7.9.3 It is felt there are a number of alternative measures could be considered that can address the key problems and free up short stay capacity where it is most needed and that can also make some additional provision for commuter and employee parking that will be economically beneficial.

Draft

54


8. Bibliography

Alpha Parking Ltd (2005) Review of the Lewis town controlled parking zone and possible extensions to the CPZ

Clark D (2007) An economic impact study of the effect of car parking charges at Midhurst inWest Sussex – Scoping Study 2007

Feeney, B.P. (1989) A Review of the Impact of Parking Policy Measures on Travel Demand. Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol.13, pp. 229-244.

Marsden G (2006) The evidence base for parking policies – a review Transport Policy Vol 13 p447-457

RAC Foundation (2005) Motoring Towards 2050 - Parking in Transport Policy. RAC Foundation, London.

Rye T (2006) Motoring towards 2050: some issues arising from the RAC Foundations’ recent report Transport Research Institute, Napier University

Rye T., Cowan, T. and Ison, S. (2004) Expansion of a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) and its Influence on Modal Split: The Case of Edinburgh, Scotland and its Relevance to Elsewhere, Paper to 83rd Annual Meeting of TRB, Washington.

Shoup D (2006) Cruising for parking Transport Policy Vol 13 p479-486

Still B. and Simmonds D., (2000) Parking Restraint policy and Urban Vitality. Transport Reviews, Vol. 20: No. 3, p291-316

Sustrans (2003) Traffic restraint and retail vitality – information sheet FF39

Sustrans (2006) Shoppers and how they travel - information sheet LN02

Commission for Integrated Transport (2006) Sustainable Transport Choices and the Retail Sector Final Report

ESCC Central St Leonards Shopping Survey – September 2006

TRL - The impact of a controlled parking zone in Barnet, J.Smith 1992

Documents

Economic Impact Parking Controls