APPENDIX 2
PROPOSED PROHIBITION OF WAITING AT ANY TIME, VARIOUS ROADS,
MARNEL PARK, BASINGSTOKE
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FOLLOWING PUBLIC ADVERTISEMENT
Summary of comment(s)
Officer response
MARNEL PARK
Objector 1 – Resident of Appleton Drive
a) Asks how servicing of property or deliveries
of bulky items be accommodated?
b) Visitors will have difficulty finding parking
nearby.
c) Understands the current parking problems
where some people park over pedestrian
dropped kerbs, across junctions and on
bends but, questions why the proposed
parking controls are so comprehensive.
d) Some properties have lesser parking
facilities than the number of vehicles in their
use.
e) Suggests that consideration should be given
to providing more parking facilities on the
estate.
Objector 2 – Resident of Appleton Drive
a) Appreciates that the current parking may
cause a nuisance but, it is not practicable to
ban all parking.
b) Most of the properties have 1 allocated
parking space but, households may have
more than 1 vehicle. Also, how are they to
receive visitors if the parking controls go
ahead?
Objector 3 – Resident of Appleton Drive
a) As the proposed yellow lines stop short of
their property it is likely that the displaced
vehicles will be parked outside their property
causing access difficulties.
b) Comments that it was the responsibility of
developers and planners to make adequate
parking provision but, it should not be the
residents that suffer this error.
a) The proposed parking controls do not
prevent loading/unloading or the
boarding/alighting of vehicles.
b) There are designated communal parking
spaces within courtyards and surveys
carried-out by the developer revealed that
these parking facilities were under used.
c) Parking controls in the form of double
yellow lines are proposed to ensure that the
swept path of vehicles at bends, junctions,
communal parking area accesses, private
driveways and pedestrian crossing points
are kept clear of parked vehicles. Also, the
yellow lines will ensure that access is
maintained for delivery, servicing and
emergency vehicles.
d) Noted.
e) There is no land available in the area to
create additional parking facilities on the
estate.
a) See 1c) above.
b) Noted, also see 1b) above.
a) The council would carry-out post
implementation monitoring of the area and
if vehicles were observed to be parking in
locations that adversely affected road
safety and/or traffic flow then further
parking controls would be considered.
b) Noted.
c) Noted but, the level and locations of the
APPENDIX 2
PROPOSED PROHIBITION OF WAITING AT ANY TIME, VARIOUS ROADS,
MARNEL PARK, BASINGSTOKE
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FOLLOWING PUBLIC ADVERTISEMENT
c) When cars are parked on Appleton Drive it
actually makes traffic slow down.
Objector 4 – Resident of Barrington Drive
a) Acknowledges that parking on the estate can
sometimes be problematic due to parking on
bends, opposite junctions, on pavements
and across pedestrian dropped kerbs.
b) The double red (yellow) lines would cause
more problems and it would be unfair if they
can no longer park on the road as there is
already insufficient parking provision on the
estate.
c) The proposals would prevent delivery
drivers, Royal Mail and visitors being able to
park. Also, the parked cars perform a useful
traffic calming feature as they ensure that
the speed of traffic is kept down as opposing
vehicles often have to give way to each
other.
d) Since the bus route was introduced the
problem has become worse and more
dangerous, with buses sometimes having to
mount the footway to pass dangerously
parked cars.
e) Asks whether consideration could be given
to turning part of the green on Barrington
Drive into parking, with residents’ parking
permits?
f) If the police had taken more to deal with
irresponsible and dangerous parking this
would have forced more people to use their
allocated parking rather than parking onstreet.
Objector 5 – Resident of Appleton Drive
a) Most households have inadequate allocated
parking i.e. only one space and therefore
have no alternative but to park on-street.
b) Appleton Drive is used a rat run and having
parked cars on the road helps slow the
traffic.
c) There would be no place for visitors, delivery
drivers to park.
d) Suggests that more parking be provided on
parked vehicles do present hazards for
road users and impedes access for
delivery, services and emergency vehicles.
a)
b)
c)
d)
Noted.
See 1c).
See 1a), 1b) and 3c).
The proposal would assist the passage of
buses and other larger vehicles e.g.
emergency and servicing vehicles.
e) The ‘village’ green is the focal point of the
estate and it is unlikely that planning
permission would be forthcoming to convert
this green space to parking.
f) Despite repeated attempts by the police the
inconsiderate parking of vehicles in this
area has continued.
a)
b)
c)
d)
See 1c).
See 3c).
See 1a) and 1b).
See 1e).
APPENDIX 2
PROPOSED PROHIBITION OF WAITING AT ANY TIME, VARIOUS ROADS,
MARNEL PARK, BASINGSTOKE
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FOLLOWING PUBLIC ADVERTISEMENT
the estate.
Objector 6 – Resident of Appleton Drive
a) Only has one parking space assigned to
their property but, for work/life reasons have
two cars. Not being able to park on street
would affect their livelihood.
Objectors 7 to 12 – Residents of Appleton Drive
a) The proposals fail to address the lack of
resident and visitor parking and are based
on an assumption that there is adequate offroad parking.
b) The displaced vehicles will park on the
adjoining side roads that already have their
own parking problems.
c) No consideration has been given to traffic
calming measures to address a possible
increase in traffic flow and speed along
Appleton Drive and Barrington Close.
d) Residents will be denied to receive
deliveries/collections to/from their properties.
Also, it will make it difficult for them to have
visitors.
Objector 13 – Resident of Ilsley Road
a) Acknowledges that due to the low parking
standard that was applied to the estate there
is already a problem with cars being parked
on corners, pavements, dropped kerbs and
pedestrian accesses and opposite each
other preventing vehicles from passing.
b) Cars and buses on Barrington Drive have to
take evasive action or weave in and out of
the parked cars with limited visibility and
almost causing collisions. Also, the speed of
rat-through traffic is a problem. By removing
the parked cars this will only get worse.
c) Suggests that additional parking is provided
i.e. changing the green into parking. Also, a
20mph speed limit should be imposed.
d) Suggests making the roads one-way with
parking on one side of the road only so that
traffic can pass.
a) Noted.
a) The proposals would encourage more
residents to make use of their allocated
parking that is within courtyards.
b) See 3a).
c) Hampshire County Council would be
responsible for assessing the need for any
traffic calming measures. This comment
has been passed to HCC for consideration.
d) See 1a).
a)
b)
c)
d)
Noted.
See 1c).
See 4e) and 7c).
One way restrictions do require a Traffic
Regulation Order. One way restrictions
can be used to help increase the flow of
traffic in a congested area, or to remove the
hazard of oncoming traffic in narrow
streets. They can also increase the
amount of on-street parking in narrow
roads since space does not need to be left
for opposing traffic to pull in and give way.
This can lead to higher traffic speeds,
particularly in narrow roads, since drivers
will be confident that they will not meet an
oncoming vehicle. Another drawback of
one way roads is that they can increase the
distance vehicles need to travel, which can
be a deterrent to cycling unless other
measures can be provided for cyclists such
APPENDIX 2
PROPOSED PROHIBITION OF WAITING AT ANY TIME, VARIOUS ROADS,
MARNEL PARK, BASINGSTOKE
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FOLLOWING PUBLIC ADVERTISEMENT
as contraflow facilities.
Objector 14 – Resident of Penton Way
a) Inconsiderate and dangerous parking is an
issue on the estate. As the estate has
grown and particularly since multi-occupier
tenancies have been granted the number of
parked cars has increased in leaps and
bounds.
b) Already suffers difficulties in parking outside
their house and is concerned that the
proposals will only make matters worse.
c) Suggests that parking permits are introduced
to accord with the size of property. Also,
only permit holders should be able to park
outside their respective properties.
Objector 15 – Resident of Appleton Drive
a) There are not enough spaces for all of the
cars that will be displaced by the parking
controls. The displaced vehicles will simply
park on the adjoining side streets where
parking is already a problem. Also, the small
number of visitor spaces will be used by
residents themselves. Suggests that some of
the green is taken to provide additional
parking facilities.
b) Double red lines will mean that no one can
pick up or drop off and load or unload.
c) Traffic already travels too fast on Appleton
Drive and Barrington Drive and this will
worsen if the roads are cleared of parked
vehicles. Through traffic will increase and
traffic calming measures will be required.
d) The roads are not wide enough for buses.
Objector 16 – Resident of Appleton Drive
a) Agrees that some areas of Marnel Park do
need parking controls i.e. on bends.
However, there is little alternative parking on
the estate for residents and visitors.
b) If the proposals go ahead there will be
increases in through traffic speeds. Also,
the displaced vehicles will be forced to park
in the already crowded side roads.
a) Noted.
b) See 1c) and 3a).
c) Under UK legislation it is not permissible to
reserve any part of the public highway for
the specific use of an individual or property.
a) See 1c), 3a) and 4e).
b) The proposed double yellow lines are
depicted in red on the associated scheme
drawing. Also, see 1a).
c) The police are responsible for speed
enforcement. Also see 7c).
d) The use of Appleton Drive and Barrington
Drive as a bus route is appropriate.
a) Noted.
b) See 7c) and 3a).
APPENDIX 2
PROPOSED PROHIBITION OF WAITING AT ANY TIME, VARIOUS ROADS,
MARNEL PARK, BASINGSTOKE
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FOLLOWING PUBLIC ADVERTISEMENT
Objector 17 – Resident of Appleton Drive
a) Understands the need to implement parking
controls at the entrances to Appleton Drive
as it is a bus route and people park on both
sides of the road. However, the
development was knowingly built with
inadequate parking facilities.
b) The proposals will push the parking into side
roads that where there is already no room to
park. Also, the speed of traffic on Appleton
Drive will increase.
c) People with children, pushchairs, heavy
shopping and deliveries; and the elderly who
cannot walk any distance will be
inconvenienced by the proposals.
d) Suggests that double yellow lines should be
introduced down one side of the road only,
or at certain points. Also, hopes that more
allocated, numbered parking for residents is
built.
Objector 18 – Resident of Appleton Drive
a) Marnel Park has inadequate parking facilities
with many properties not having space for
their second vehicle. Kerbside parking is the
only option for those properties and others
that do not have any allocated parking.
b) No alternative arrangements are being
proposed for those whose parking is directly
affected or for visitors. Also, the displaced
vehicles will only exacerbate the existing
parking situation elsewhere on the estate.
c) Deliveries will be affected.
Objector 19 – Resident of Ilsley Road
a) The lack of parking at Marnel Park leads
people to park on road causing congestion
and annoyance. Additional parking facilities
are required before the parking controls are
imposed. Suggests the creation of parking
spaces around the green area and then
allocating the spaces to the surrounding
properties. Also, provide properties with a
driveway where possible.
a)
b)
c)
d)
Noted.
See 3a) and 7c).
See 1a).
See 1c), 1e) and 14c).
a) See 1c).
b) See 1e) and 3a).
c) See 1a).
a) See 1e), 4e) and 14c). Also, residents
themselves are responsible for providing
driveways to their properties. This would
require the approval of the highway
authority and is likely to require planning
approval.
APPENDIX 2
PROPOSED PROHIBITION OF WAITING AT ANY TIME, VARIOUS ROADS,
MARNEL PARK, BASINGSTOKE
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FOLLOWING PUBLIC ADVERTISEMENT
Objector 20 – Resident of Ilsley Road
a) Agrees that something needs to be done but,
provision needs to be made for the displaced
vehicles to park. Without an alternative the
current parking difficulties, especially for
visitors will get worse.
Objector 21 – Resident of Appleton Drive
a) Agrees that parked cars at the entrances are
an issue but, not all residents have enough
parking facilities and so are forced to park on
the road. The parking controls will just lead
to the displaced vehicles being parked on
another unrestricted road causing
annoyance to its residents.
Objector 22 – Resident of Appleton Drive
a) Where will visitors, especially the disabled
and tradespersons park?
b) Whilst the roads are becoming very clogged
and driving through can at times be difficult
(especially for buses and servicing vehicles)
to have nowhere to park except on the road
is a planning error.
Objector 23 – Resident of Appleton Drive
a) As an owner of a four bedroomed house with
only one allocated parking space but two
cars the proposal will cause problems for
them and their visitors.
Objector 24 – Resident of Cleeve Road
a) The proposed yellow line on Cleeve Road
will be directly outside their house and will
leave nowhere to park a car and will also
have a financial impact on the value of their
property.
b) Suggests an alternative alignment for Cleeve
Road including a mini-roundabout at a new
junction with Appleton Drive that would
require repositioning of the adjacent
playground. Alternatively, introduce
resident’s permits for property even numbers
2 to 10 and prevent parking by play park
visitors.
a) See 1e) and 3a).
a) See 1c) and 3a).
a) See 1a). Blue badge holders are permitted
to park on double yellow lines for up to 3
hours provided that they do not cause a
hazard or obstruction. Also, dispensations
are available for the purpose of allowing
reasonable parking by tradespersons.
b) See 1c).
a) Noted.
a) The reason for the proposal is explained at
1c). Perceived property valuation issues
cannot be taken into account in safety led
parking proposals.
b) Mini-roundabouts are only appropriate
where there is an equalisation of traffic
flows on all arms of a junction. There is no
justification for a mini-roundabout at this
minor road junction. Residents’ permit
parking schemes will only be provided on
an area wide basis if most residents have
little or no off-street parking space and if
residents’ difficulty in finding space to park
is caused by the regular parking of non-
APPENDIX 2
PROPOSED PROHIBITION OF WAITING AT ANY TIME, VARIOUS ROADS,
MARNEL PARK, BASINGSTOKE
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FOLLOWING PUBLIC ADVERTISEMENT
resident vehicles. Also, a residents’
parking scheme does not guarantee that a
resident could always park outside their
property.
Objector 25 – Resident of Appleton Drive
a) The estate has been built with inadequate
parking for the average household with
limited visitor parking available.
b) Seeks clarification on what alternative
parking options will be made available for
residents, visitors, deliveries and servicing of
properties? The side streets are not an
option as they are already filled with cars
due to the overall parking shortage.
c) With no parked cars traffic speeds will
increase.
Objector 26 – Resident of Barrington Drive
a) With limited communal parking spaces, and
no other off-street parking, there is often no
other option for residents than to park on the
main roads through the estate. Also, with
residents taking-up communal spaces,
visitors then exacerbate the situation.
b) Suggests that the provision of more parking
spaces be investigated or only place the
yellow lines where parking is making the
roads and pavements unsafe.
Objector 27 – Resident of Gardiner Road
a) Agrees that yellow lines on bends and
junctions are required but, not on the
straighter sections of Appleton Drive and
Barrington Drive as the displaced vehicles
will only park on the side roads where
parking is already an issue.
Objector 28 – Resident of Appleton Drive
a) There is a currently inadequate parking
facility on the estate.
b) Suggests that a 20 mph speed limit and
traffic calming measures be introduced if the
parking controls are put in place.
a) The parking provision met the parking
standards that applied at the time of the
development.
b) See 1a), 1b) and 1e).
c) See 7c).
a) See 1c).
b) See 1e).
a) See 1c) and 3a).
a) See 7a) and 25a).
b) See 7c).
APPENDIX 2
PROPOSED PROHIBITION OF WAITING AT ANY TIME, VARIOUS ROADS,
MARNEL PARK, BASINGSTOKE
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FOLLOWING PUBLIC ADVERTISEMENT
Objector 29 – Resident of Appleton Drive
a) Property owners are being punished for the
low parking standard (1.5) that was applied
to the development.
b) Accepts that there is a parking problem on
the estate but, where will they park in the
future. Also, how are visitors and deliveries
to be accommodated?
c) Due to the parked cars through traffic does
slow down but, removal of the cars will lead
to increased speeds.
Objector 30 – Resident of Appleton Drive
a) Currently the parked cars slow down through
traffic that is avoiding the traffic lights along
Popley Way. Before any parking controls are
imposed consideration should be given to
speed control measures.
b) Believes that double yellow lines are
excessive and parking controls should be
introduced at bends and junctions. Also,
suggests that additional parking be provided
for residents and visitors.
Objector 31 – Resident of Appleton Drive
a) The proposal will affect residents who have
more than one car per and their visitors.
b) Suggests that additional parking facilities are
provided for residents and visitors. Also,
apply yellow lines to junctions and issue
parking permits for residents and visitors.
Objector 32 – Resident of Appleton Drive
a) There is a need for some parking controls
and two areas where parking is an issue are
covered by the proposals. However, with no
communal parking and only limited allocated
parking where will visitors park as the
proposals are too excessive. As an
alternative, it would make more sense to just
target individuals who are responsible for
inconsiderate or dangerous parking
b) Believes that the proposals are linked to the
bus route that is not appropriate for the
estate. Suggests that this bus service
should be reviewed due to its road safety
a) See 25a).
b) See 1a), 1c) and 1e).
c) See 7c).
a) See 7c).
b) See 1c) and 1e).
a) See 1c), 7a) and 25a).
b) See 1e) and 1c). Residents’ permit parking
schemes are only appropriate for locations
where residents and non-residents e.g.
commuters regularly compete for the
available parking space.
a) See 1c). Also, the police do have existing
powers to deal with hazardous or
obstructive parking.
b) See 15d).
APPENDIX 2
PROPOSED PROHIBITION OF WAITING AT ANY TIME, VARIOUS ROADS,
MARNEL PARK, BASINGSTOKE
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FOLLOWING PUBLIC ADVERTISEMENT
implications on the estate.
Objector 33 – Resident of Appleton Drive
a) Can see the benefit of parking controls but,
the displaced vehicles will transfer to the
side streets that are already have parking
issues.
Objector 34 – Resident of Barrington Drive
a) Inadequate parking provision was
incorporated at the time of planning
approval.
b) Where will residents park?
c) The parked cars act as traffic calming on
both Appleton Drive and Barrington Drive.
However, the bus route has not helped traffic
flow.
Petition containing 143 signatures objecting
to the proposals.
“We the undersigned, Residents of Marnel Park
and Merton Rise, Basingstoke, petition the
BDBC to withdraw and reconsider the above
proposal to introduce “No Waiting At Any Time”
parking restrictions on various roads on Marnel
Park for the following reasons:
(i) There are a number of residents and visitors
that park on the roads named in this proposal as
there was insufficient allocated parking planned
and currently available in the vicinity of their
homes relative to the amount of residents in
these roads and the entire Marnel Park and
Merton Rise developments;
(ii) If a “no waiting at any time” proposal that
introduces double red lines into this residential
development is adopted, Residents who live in
these roads will not be permitted to stop, load or
unload vehicles in front of their homes. This
may also prevent performance of essential
services such as postal deliveries, food
deliveries and waste collection;
(iii) If “no waiting at any time” is enforced in
these roads, this will disperse Resident’s
vehicles into surrounding streets either creating
parking issues for other Residents in and
around Marnel Park and Merton Rise; and/or
a) See 3a).
a) and b) See 1c), 7a) and 25a).
c) See 3c).
(i) The parking provision met the parking
standards that applied at the time of the
development. Also, surveys carried-out by
the developer revealed that designated
communal parking facilities within
courtyards were under used. The
proposals would encourage more residents
to make use of their allocated parking that
is within courtyards.
(ii) The proposed double yellow lines are
depicted in red on the associated scheme
drawing. The proposed parking controls do
not prevent loading/unloading or the
boarding/alighting of vehicles.
(iii) The council would carry-out post
implementation monitoring of the area and
if vehicles were observed to be parking in
locations that adversely affected road
safety and/or traffic flow then further
parking controls would be considered.
APPENDIX 2
PROPOSED PROHIBITION OF WAITING AT ANY TIME, VARIOUS ROADS,
MARNEL PARK, BASINGSTOKE
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FOLLOWING PUBLIC ADVERTISEMENT
exasperate any existing road and safety issues
in these surrounding areas;
(iv) Removal of the on-street parking may
increase the attractiveness and therefore use of
Barrington and Appleton Drive as a “cut
through” from the Reading Road (A33) to the
Tadley Road. This may attract more vehicles to
use these roads, increase traffic speeds and
increase the risk of road traffic incidents, safety
of residents and children using the adjoining
“green” play areas.
We the undersigned therefore ask this parking
control proposal is withdrawn entirely and the
BDBC either:
(i) Amend the parking control proposal to adopt
a parking control scheme that provides
adequate controls (double yellow lines) on
junctions, bends, pedestrian crossing points to
address safety concerns without removing onroad parking altogether; or
(ii) Abandons the proposal.
Supporter 1 – Resident of Gardiner Road
a) Was elated to see the proposals but, is
concerned that vehicles will park at the end
of the yellow lines and blocking light and the
side access to their property.
Supporter 2 – Resident of Barrington Drive
a) Agrees with the proposed parking controls.
Supporter 3 – Resident of Gardiner Road
a) Agrees that parking controls are needed to
force people to park on their drives and not
on the road.
b) However, would also like traffic calming
measures to be introduced as the removal of
parked cars will make the route more
attractive for through traffic.
(iv) Hampshire County Council would be
responsible for assessing the need for any
traffic calming measures. This comment
has been passed to HCC for consideration.
(i) Parking controls in the form of double
yellow lines are proposed to ensure that the
swept path of vehicles at bends, junctions,
communal parking area accesses, private
driveways and pedestrian crossing points
are kept clear of parked vehicles. Also, the
yellow lines will ensure that access is
maintained for delivery, servicing and
emergency vehicles. The scheme has
been revised as shown in Appendix 3.
(ii) Agreed.
a) See 1c).
a) Noted.
a) Noted.
b) See 7c).