Economic Impact Parking Controls

t
af
St Leonards Parking Economic Impact
Study
Draft Interim Report
Dr
Hastings Borough Council
January 2008
St Leonards Parking Economic Impact Study
Second Interim Draft Report
t
af
Project No: 135771
January 2008
Dr
Newcombe House
45 Notting Hill Gate,
London, W11 3PB
Telephone: 020 7309 7000
Fax: 020 7309 0906
Email : London@cbuchanan.co.uk
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 it
was 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 and
diligence 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
Contents Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Economic impact assessment study 1
1.2 Regeneration context 1
1.3 Study objective 2
t
2. ECONOMIC CONTEXT 3
2.1 Socio-economic background 3
2.2 Employment 4
2.3 Affordability 4
2.4 Parking charges 7
af
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.
Present retail offer - Hastings Retail Study
Economic Impact of Parking Controls
Parking and shopping
Employees
Economic context summary
ASSESSMENT OF PARKING
Current Off street parking provision
Current On-street parking provision
Current parking management
Current parking behaviour
Current parking assessment conclusions
FUTURE PARKING DEMAND
8
10
11
15
16
17
17
19
20
22
28
29
Dr
4.1 Introduction 29
4.2 General background growth 29
4.3 New developments within the town centre 29
4.4 Change in the nature of St Leonards economic
performance 35
4.5 Future supply and demand car parking spaces 35
4.6 Future parking demand assessment conclusions 36
5. CONSULTATION 38
5.1 Introduction 38
5.2 Visitor survey 38
5.3 Parking survey 40
5.4 Employee survey 40
5.5 Stakeholder consultation 41
5.6 Consultation findings 42
6. ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORT SERVICES 43
6.1 Bus services 43
6.2 Train services 43
7. ECONOMIC IMPACT 45
7.1 Current CPZ proposal background 45
7.2 Proposed CPZ parking management 45
7.3 Proposed CPZ charges and management costs 46
7.4 Economic Impact 47
7.5 Economic costs of CPZ as proposed 48
7.6 Economic benefits 49
7.7 Balance of costs and benefits 50
7.8 Options 51
7.9 Option Conclusions 53
8. BIBLIOGRAPHY 54
APPENDIX 1 - METHODOLOGY 55
Current parking provision 55
Future demand for parking 55
Consultation 55
t
CPZ management 55
Affordability 56
Consultation 56
Final report and presentation 56
af
APPENDIX 2 - SURVEYS
Shopping/Visitor Survey
Employee Survey
Parking Survey
APPENDIX 3
Stakeholders Providing Written Or Verbal Comments
APPENDIX 4
Parking occupancy survey sample results
APPENDIX 5
Calculation of Economic Impact on Retail Spend of Current CPZ
proposal
APPENDIX 6
62
62
57
57
58
58
60
60
61
61
63
Dr
Central St Leonards CPZ Proposal Map 63
Tables Page
Table 2.1: Economic activity rates – Central St Leonards 3

Table 2.2: Benefit claimants Central St Leonards – February
2007 3
Table 2.3: House ownership 4
Table 2.4: Proportion of the workforce who are: 4
Table 2.5: Average weekly income in Hastings 5
Table 2.6: Weekly household expenditure 5
Table 2.7: Permit charges in Lewes 6
Table 2.8: Annual permit charges for selected authorities 7
Table 2.9: Floorspace Composition - St Leonards 8
Table 2.10: Change in retail provision by road 2004-2007 9
Table 2.11: Parking requirements for different types of car use
over a week (hours) 10
Table 2.12: Perception versus reality, travel by mode to shops 11
Table 2.13: Average distance travelled by mode of transport
(percent by mode) 14
Table 2.14: Frequency of visit by mode of transport (percent by
mode) 14
Table 2.15: Economic activity of visitors 14
Table 2.16: Travel to work by mode 15
t
Table 2.17: Travel to work by distance 16
Table 3.1: Crystal Square car park daily use 17
Table 3.2: Marina car park daily use 18
af
Table 4.1:
Table 4.2:
Table 4.3:
Table 4.4:
Table 4.5:
Table 4.6:
Employment schemes, listing the number of jobs
and probability of occurring
Car park demand relating to additional retail

development
Car park demand relating to additional housing
development
Possible future car ownership levels in St
31
Housing schemes, listing the number of units and
probability of occurring
Car park demand relating to office development
32
34
34
35
Dr
Leonards 35
Table 4.7: Spare car parking supply, business as usual 36
Table 4.8: Spare car parking supply, enhanced economic
growth 36
Table 4.9: Spare car parking supply, enhanced economic
growth 36
Table 5.1: Visitors to St Leonards by mode 38
Table 5.2: Spend by mode 39
Table 5.3: Ease of finding a parking space 39
Table 5.4: Length of period parked 40
Table 5.5: Ease of finding a parking space, proportion stating 40
Table 5.6: Method of travelling to work 41
Table 7.1: Economics costs and benefits 51
Figures Page
Figure 2.1: Main mode of transport to local convenience store 12

Figure 2.2: Spend by mode used 13
Figure 3.1: Crystal Square Car Park Saturday 13/10/07 at
12:43 17
Figure 3.2: Marina Car Park Friday 12/10/07 at 12:27 18
Figure 3.3: Warrior Square Station Car Park Friday 12/10/07
at 14:18 19
t
Figure 3.4: Illegal parking on the junction of Station Approach
and Stainsby Street 23
Figure 3.5: Consequence of illegal and poor parking blocking
the entrance to Kings road 26
af
Figure 3.6:
Figure 6.1:
Loading/unloading activity in Kings Road
Town Centre approach from Warrior Square
Station
26
44
Dr
1. Introduction
1.1 Economic impact assessment study

1.1.1 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
t
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 being
invested in the area through a range of schemes, some of which are completed
or underway. These include:
af
1.2.2
1.2.3

£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)
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.
Over the last 5 years HBC has worked with Stagecoach to develop and
Dr
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 preparing
detailed 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 spaces
around 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 current
parking capacity and parking management do not provide sufficient parking
space to accommodate the additional visitors attracted to the town. There is
also 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
1
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 and
t
management 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 parking
af
1.2.10
1.2.11
management on St Leonards.
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
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.
Dr
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
2
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 below
the 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.
t
Table 2.1: Economic activity rates – Central St Leonards
Proportion of those of Unemployment rate –

working age in employment - October 2007
af
2.1.2
2.1.3
Males
Females
Total
2001
62.1
56.2
59.4
Source: 2001 Census data, NOMIS claimant count
10.6
4.0
7.7
High unemployment and low economic activity rates means that the proportion
of 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.
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

Dr
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.
3
Table 2.3: House ownership
Central St Hastings South

Leonards East
Ward Non-Metropolitan District Region
Owned 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.
t
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,
af
2.2.2
which gives a total number of people working within the ward at around 2,000.
Just over 200 of these work mainly from home.
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:
Central St
Leonards
Hastings
South East
Proportion of the workforce who are:
Male
40%
44%
50%
Female
60%
56%
50%
Source: The Annual Business Inquiry Survey 2005
Full time
57%
60%
67%
Part time
43%
40%
33%
Dr
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 is

only 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.
4
Table 2.5: Average weekly income in Hastings
Average and Weekly income

Median 377.4
Mean 414.9
10 percentile 225.0
20 percentile 266.8
25 percentile 284.5
30 percentile 296.9
40 percentile 337.4
t
60 percentile 425.2
70 percentile 483.3
75 percentile 508.3
80 percentile 529.3
af
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.3.5
Source: Annual survey of Hours and Earnings
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.
Table 2.6 provides a snap shot of weekly household expenditure in total and on
transport 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.
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
Dr
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
All Expenditure Savings Percentage of Increase in

expenditure on transport spending on weekly spending
transport on transport if
cost increases by
£1
Lowest ten 153.6 13.2 0.2 8.6% 7.6%
percent
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 479 63.5 6.5 13.3% 1.6%
decile
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 989.7 161.9 23.1 16.4% 0.6%
percent
All 443.4 61.7 7.2 13.9% 1.6%
households
Source: Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings
2.3.6 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.
5
However, it should be noted that only a very small proportion of people within
this 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 increase
in car running costs of 1.4%. This rises to around 4% for an older car that is fully
t
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.
af
2.3.9
Table 2.7:
150g/km or less
120g/km or less
100g/km or less
Electric and LPG
vehicles
Permit charges in Lewes
Vehicles registered
CO2 value
More than 185g/km
185g/km or less
Source: East Sussex County Council

First permit cost
Annual
£95
£85
£75
£55
£15
£15
Second permit cost
Annual
£130
£120
£110
Table 2.8 sets out permit charges in a range of local authorities and provides
£90
£50
£50
Dr
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.
6
Table 2.8: Annual permit charges for selected authorities
Cost of Residents and Business Permits

Authority
Lowest Highest comments
cost per cost per
annum annum
Lewes £15 £130 Permit cost related to emissions, and

highest cost is for second permit for
the highest emissions vehicle
t
Hastings £35 £120 New rates being introduced. Highest
is for second permit and lowest is for
shared use bay.
Warwickshire County £10 £10
Council - Warwick
Scheme
af Preston City Council
Carmarthenshire County
Council
Plymouth City Council

Lincoln City Council
Chiltern District Council

Crawley Borough
Council
York City Council
Colchester Borough
Council
Bath and North East
£17
£20
£25
£25
£25
£30
£43
£50
£55
£30
£50
£25+
£50
£25
£60
£86
£50
£60
Higher cost payable if it is your
second permit
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,
Business permits cost more
Higher cost payable for business
permits
Higher cost payable if it is your

second permit
Lower cost (50% discount) if car has
low emissions or is less than 2.7m
long. Concessions for elderly or
disabled
Free for disabled persons
Charge depends on zone

Dr
Somerset Council - Bath
Parking Zones
St. Edmundsbury, West £60 £80
Suffolk
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 charges

2.4.1 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 public
off-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.
7
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 as
Boots 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
t
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
af
2.5.4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
B1
C1
C3
D1
D2
Sui Generis
Vacant
Total
Source: Hastings Retail Study
99
21
14
28
32
226
6
7
7
1
2
1
8
The study reported “a severe deficiency of parking provision for shoppers

43.8%
9.3%
6.2%
2.7%
3.1%
3.1%
0.4%
12.4%
0.9%
0.4%
3.5%
14.2%
100%
Dr
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 that
landowners 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 updated
this mapping exercise and the comparison is summarised in Table 2.10.
8
Table 2.10: Change in retail provision by road 2004-2007
Marina Road Silchester London Road Kings Road Western Road Cross Street Grand Parade Warier Total
Road Square
No change in 10 9 35 33 4 2 8 1 102 50%
occupier
No change in 2 0 1 5 0 1 9 4%
activity but
name change
– could be
same
occupier
Changed 5 2 10 7 1 5 1 31 15%
occupier but
same or
similar use
Changed use 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 1%
from office to
retail
Vacant into 3 6 2 5 2 3 21 10%
use
Remained 2 4 4 0 4 1 2 2 19 9%
vacant
Use into 1 0 6 4 5 1 17 8%
vacant
Total Vacant 3 4 10 4 9 1 2 3 36 18%
Vacant into 2 2 1%
dwellings
Dr
Total charity 1 0 5 4 0 1 11 5%
shops
Total outlets 25 21 58 55 16 3 21 5 204 100%
Source: CB comparison of 2004 property use to use in October 2007
af
9
t
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 units
have 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.
t
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
af
2.6.1
2.6.2
2.6.3
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.
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.
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:
Dr
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 miles/year Driving time Parked at or Parked at or Parked

use near home near work
elsewhere
Driver A: 5,000 5-10 155 0 5
Domestic
Driver B: 10,000 10-15 110 40 5
Domestic /
travel to work
Driver C: 25,000 20-30 80 30 30
Domestic /
business use
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.
10
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 1
demonstrates 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
t
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:
af
2.6.8
2.7
2.7.1

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.
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.
Parking and shopping

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
Dr
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 Car

Retailers – Graz 25 5 12 58
Shoppers - Graz 44 8 16 32
Retailers - Bristol 42 6 11 41
Shoppers - 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
11
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 wanted
more 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.
t
2.7.6 The counter argument from retailers is that those who arrive by car spend more
than 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.
af
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.
Dr
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 amount
spent 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 Study
5
Commission for Integrated Transport (2006) Sustainable Transport Choices and the Retail Sector
Final Report
12
t
Figure 2.2: Spend by mode used
Source: Commission for Integrated Transport (2006) Sustainable Transport Choices
and the Retail Sector Final Report
af
2.7.9
2.7.10
Traffic and shopping tend not to go together. The freedom to move around a
shopping area without having to negotiate moving traffic and parked vehicles
makes 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.
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-
Dr
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 created
more 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 the
introduction 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)
13
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 by

mode)
Walk Car Other

<½ mile 62 5 14
½ -1 mile 23 10 8
1 - 2 miles 10 20 30
t
2 - 5 miles 1 33 22
5+ 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
af
2.7.14
came less than once a month, Table 2.14.
Table 2.14:
4+ a week
2-3 a week
Once a week
1-2 a month
infrequent
Frequency of visit by mode of transport (percent by mode)

Walk
49
32
11
6
0
Car
15
31
13
28
13
Other
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

22
27
19
32
0
Dr
Economic activity Percent
Full time employment 19
Part time employment 10
Retired 32
Self employed 8
Unemployed 16
Student 5
Home maker 6
other 4
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.
14
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
t
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
af
2.8.3
2.8.4
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.
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
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
Dr
breakdown by mode and compares St Leonards with Hastings generally.
Table 2.16: Travel to work by mode
Central St Hastings
Leonards
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%
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 km
away from the town centre.
8
RAC Foundation Motoring towards 2050
9
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
15
Table 2.17: Travel to work by distance
Distance travelled to work Central St Hastings

Leonards
Less than 2km 34% 37%
2km to less than 5km 38% 38%
t
30km and over 3% 3%
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
af
2.9
2.9.1
2.9.2
2.9.3
beyond walking distance. Given the rise in car ownership since 2001 we would
expect a further increase in car commuting to have taken place since then.
Economic context summary

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

wage economy.
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
Dr
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.
16
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
t
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-
af
3.1.3
two hours and 20% over two hours.
Table 3.1:
Average
daily use
Stay <1hr
1-2 hrs
>2hrs
Crystal Square car park daily use
Monday
60
63
19
18
Tuesday
60
61
18
21
Wednesday
60
57
21
22
Source: CB analysis based on HBC parking data
Thursday
60
60
19
21
Friday
70
68
16
16
Saturday
50
64
17
19
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.
.
Sunday
5
21
21
58
Total
50
62
18
20
Dr
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.
17
3.1.5 Marina car park has 90 places and operates the same charging system as
Crystal Square. However, usage is very different with half of its usage occurring
at 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 Total

Average 30 20 20 20 20 50 65 30
daily
use
Stay 47 46 45 46 45 40 34 41
t
<1hr
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
af to accommodate a substantial increase in volume. Average revenue is just over

£200 a year per space.
Dr
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.
18
t
af
3.1.8
3.2
Figure 3.3: Warrior Square Station Car Park Friday 12/10/07 at 14:18
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.
Current On-street parking provision

Dr
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 within
the 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
19
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
t
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-
af
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
residents.
Current parking management

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.
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.
Many residential areas are densely populated with property, some of which is
very large and many are converted, or being converted into flats. There are also
Dr
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 this
indicated 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
- 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.
20
- Up to 1 hour £0.10
- 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 is
understandable.
t
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
af
3.3.8
3.3.9
Leonards, or from those commuting elsewhere from St Leonards Warrior
Square Station.
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.
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
Dr
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. This
location 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
21
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)
t
- Mount Pleasant (incl. St Clements Place)
- North Street
- Shepherd Street (incl. Temperance Cottages)
- Stanhope Place
- Union Street
af
3.3.11
3.4
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
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.
Current parking behaviour

Dr
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 parking
was 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 these
vehicles 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 of
unrestricted 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.
22
t
af
3.4.4
Figure 3.4: Illegal parking on the junction of Station Approach and
Stainsby Street
The surveys have identified some key points which are best demonstrated by
the occupancy and duration graphs presented at Appendix 4 and described
here:
Dr
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. There
was 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 observed
at 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
23
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
t
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
af
3.4.12
3.4.13
3.4.14
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.
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.
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

Both these streets head north from Station Approach, with Alexandra Road at
the northern end exiting onto London Road by Ocean House. Both were
Dr
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 spaces
occupied 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 parking
areas 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 is
more practical, given most of the off street locations are protected by chains to
avoid unauthorised use.
24
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 survey
work. Our observations indicated parking was at a maximum between 9:00 am
and 1:00 pm when 35 vehicles were observed in a potential 47 capacity.
t
3.4.19 During observations on Saturday parking never exceeded 24 vehicles the
majority of which were residents.
Appendix 4 Page 7 – Kings Road
af
3.4.20
3.4.21
3.4.22
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.
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.
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
Dr
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
25
t
af Figure 3.5: Consequence of illegal and poor parking blocking the
entrance to Kings road
Dr
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.
26
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.
t
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.
af
3.4.29
3.4.30
3.4.31
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 Friday
from 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.
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.
The parking is at capacity in North Street, but it is also suffering from problems
Dr
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.
27
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 abusing
t
the 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
af
3.4.39
3.5
3.5.1
3.5.2
free period before charges apply.
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.
Current parking assessment conclusions

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.
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.
Dr
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 parked
occupancy 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.
28
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
t
4.2 General background growth
4.2.1 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
af
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
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.
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.
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.
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
Dr
average growth in car ownership that is likely to come about from the successful
regeneration 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 a
DfT 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.
29
4.3.2 Tables 4.1 and 4.2 list the relevant projects, the numbers of associated jobs and
or housing units and our estimate of the probability that the developments will
occur.
t
af
Dr
30
Table 4.1: Employment schemes, listing the number of jobs and probability of occurring
Central St Leonards 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Probability 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Investments - Public of
And Private - 2007 / occurring
2009
Jobs
Central St Leonards 25 50 70 70 70 70 70 70 90% 22.50 45.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00
Urban Renaissance
Programme
Central St Leonards 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
Townscape Heritage
Initiative 2 (07/9)
Restoration of Already occurred
Christchurch Building
and re-location of 75+
Council Staff to the
area
St Leonards Gardens Already occurred
Marina Pavilion 10 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 90% 9.00 16.20 16.20 16.20 16.20 16.20 16.20 16.20
Refurbishment
Development Sites in
Central St Leonards -
key locations (not all
approved proposals
Sorting Office Site 3 3 3 3 3 3 25% 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Crystal Square Site 130 130 130 130 130 130 20% 26.00 26.00 26.00 26.00 26.00 26.00
Dr
Alpha Café 19 19 19 19 19 20% 3.80 3.80 3.80 3.80 3.80
Development Site
Refurbishment of 5 5 5 5 5 20% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Congregational Church
Total 33.30 64.80 111.35 116.15 116.15 116.15 116.15 116.15
Source: Base data HBC, projections CB
af
31
t
Table 4.2: Housing schemes, listing the number of units and probability of occurring
Central St 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Probability 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Leonards of
Investments - occurring
Public And
Private - 2007 /
2009
Housing
Central St Assumed no impact on housing
Leonards Housing numbers
Renovation Grants
- 07/09
Empty Homes 15 30 45 60 75 90 90 90 90% 13.50 27.00 40.50 54.00 67.50 81.00 81.00 81.00
Grants - HBC
allocation of 200K
(07/09) - with the
priority target area
being CStL
Central St 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
Leonards
Townscape
Heritage Initiative 2
(07/9)
Refurbishment led 10 20 30 40 40 40 40 40 90% 9.00 18.00 27.00 36.00 36.00 36.00 36.00 36.00
Affordable Housing
(07/08)
Development
Dr
Sites in Central St
Leonards - key
locations (not all
approved
proposals
Chapel Park Road 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 100% 36.00 36.00 36.00 36.00 36.00 36.00 36.00
Development
Adelphi Hotel, 37- 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 100% 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00
45 Warrior Square
Adelphi Hotel, 39- 24 24 24 24 24 24 50% 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
42 Warrior Square
Sorting Office Site 6 6 6 6 6 6 25% 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
Hasting College Development parking needs assumed to be contained on site
Site
af
32
t
Central St 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Probability 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Leonards of
Investments - occurring
Public And
Private - 2007 /
2009
Crystal Square Site 60 110 167 167 167 167 20% 12.00 22.00 33.40 33.40 33.40 33.40
Alpha Café 49 49 49 49 49 20% 9.80 9.80 9.80 9.80 9.80
Development Site
Stockleigh Court 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 80% 9.60 9.60 9.60 9.60 9.60 9.60 9.60
Total 24.30 110.20 160.00 202.30 227.20 240.70 240.70 240.70
Source: Base data HBC and projections CB

Dr
af
33
t
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 jobs
expected 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
t
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
af 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 being
20. 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:
Retail Jobs
Car park demand relating to additional retail development
car trips per retail job

period over which trips take
place – hours
number of stores assumed to
2008
20
20
8
5
2009
39
20
8
5
2010
79
20
8
5
2011
83
20
8
5
2012
83
20
8
5
2013
83
20
8
5
2014
83
20
8
5
2015
83
20
8
5
Dr
visit
car parking space required 10 19 40 42 42 42 42 42
4.3.5 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.
34
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 ownership 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59
per household
St Leonards
Car ownership 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
per household
St Leonards
Additional 14 65 97 122 136 144 144 144
cars – St
Leonards
t
assumptions
Additional 24 110 164 206 231 245 245 245
cars –
Hastings
assumptions
Source: CB
af
4.3.7
4.4
4.4.1
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.
Change in the nature of St Leonards economic

performance
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.
Dr
Table 4.6: Possible future car ownership levels in St Leonards
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Car 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700
ownership
St
Leonards
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.
35
Table 4.7: Spare car parking supply, business as usual
2010 2015
Present spare on-street 900 900
capacity
Increase car ownership 70 170
New development, St 97 144
Leonards level of car
ownership
Remaining spare capacity 730 580
t
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.
af
4.5.4
Table 4.8:
capacity
New development,
Spare car parking supply, enhanced economic growth
Present spare on-street
Increase car ownership to

higher level
Hastings level of car

ownership
Remaining spare capacity
2010
900
200
164
530
2015
Day time parking demand is projected to rise due to the additional retail and
office developments and the proposed redevelopment of Crystal Square car
900
700
245
-50
park. However, this will be offset by the proposed new multi storey car park. It
Dr
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 2015
Increased demand from 19 20
commercial development
Increased demand from 40 42
retail development
Loss of Crystal Square 30 30
car park
New multi storey -100 -100
Balance 11 8
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.
36
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.
t
af
Dr
37
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.
t
5.1.2 A wide range of stakeholders were also invited to comment on the issues
covered by the study. In addition a dozen businesses were offered the
opportunity to put their views in a face to face interview.
af
5.2
5.2.1
5.2.2
Visitor survey
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.
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.
Dr
Table 5.1: Visitors to St Leonards by mode
Bus % Car % Walk % Other %

Total unweighted 11 45 39 5
Total weighted – 12 38 45 5
Saturday equal weight
to a weekday
Total weighted – 12 41 42 5
Saturday weight 80%
higher than a weekday
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 are
likely 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
38
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.
t
Table 5.2: Spend by mode
Average spend Proportion of total Proportion of total weekly

per visit weekly spend – spend- Saturday 80%
Saturday equal higher week
af
5.2.6
5.2.7
Bus
Car
Walk
Other
£19
£40
£15
£10
9%
64%
25%
2%
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 is
that 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.
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.
9%
62%
27%
2%
Dr
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 45 50 39
destination
Took a while to find a parking space and had to 6 10 0
park some distance away from destination
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 has
a 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 greater
retail offer available in Hastings but not for that in St Leonards. Nearly 20%
39
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
t
Length of parking period Percentage
15 mins 12
30 mins 17
1 hours 34
1-3 hours 36
af
5.3.2
5.3.3
5.4
5.4.1
All day
Source: CB surveys
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% stated
that it took a while to find a place where they wanted to park.
2
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.
Employee survey
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
Dr
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 in
the 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 a
problem. Another quarter could find a parking place close to where they wanted
to 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
Total
Easy to park close to destination 25
Had to park some distance away from destination 17
Took a while to find a parking space close to destination 26
Took a while to find a parking space and had to park some 32
distance away from destination
Source: CB surveys
40
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 would
hope to obtain a business permit while 7% stated they would give up working in
the 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
t
Residence in TN37 Residence in TN34
Walk 12
Car 14 13
Bus 1 5
Train 1
af
5.5
5.5.1
5.5.2
Source: CB surveys
Stakeholder consultation
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.
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
Dr
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 parking
offences in Warrior Square, Norman Road, London Road and Kings
Road
The impact of a CPZ on retailers depends on the nature of the services
offered. 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
41
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 spaces
t
5.5.3 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.
af
5.6
5.6.1
5.6.2
Consultation findings
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
One inconsistency is the perception of parking on Saturdays. The occupancy
surveys and observations between a Friday and Saturday indicated that parking
pressure 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 greater
extent than during the week. With a lower density of commuter parking on
Dr
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 is
derived 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.
42
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
t
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.
af
6.1.4
6.1.5
6.1.6
6.1.7
6.1.8
These services also provide around six buses an hour to Hollington and Ore
98 and 99, provide five buses an hour between Hastings, St Leonards and
Bexhill.
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.
There have been increases in passenger journey numbers over the last three to
four 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.
Stagecoach, the bus service provider commented that a reduction in congestion

Dr
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
43
Figure 6.1: Town Centre approach from Warrior Square Station
t
af
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.
Dr
44
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 design
t
stage. 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
af
7.1.3
7.2
7.2.1
7.2.2
Hastings leading to pressure on available parking and concerns from residents
and businesses alike over the lack of parking space.
A number of regeneration and development proposals are being pursued as

part 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.
Proposed CPZ parking management

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.
The aims of the CPZ are stated to be:

Dr
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.
45
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
t
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.
af
7.2.8
7.3
7.3.1
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.
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.
Proposed CPZ charges and management costs

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
Dr
- 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
46
- 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
t
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 Leonards
and increasing shopper and visitor demand for parking. It is whether the parking
af
7.4
7.4.1
management measures proposed represent the best possible support to these
economic benefits to help outweigh the economic costs of their introduction?
Economic Impact
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 parking
attendants 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
Dr
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.
47
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 travelling
to 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 by
t
around 5% a year,
7.4.8 One of the key measures proposed for Kings Road is to improve the
environment for pedestrians and reduce parking spaces by approximately 24
spaces. However it is planned to replaced these losses by the provision of
af
7.4.9
7.5
7.5.1
approximately 33 additional parking spaces around Warrior Square Gardens by
introducing 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
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.
Economic costs of CPZ as proposed

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
Dr
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 centre
live 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 be
discouraged)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
48
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 survey
suggests 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.
t
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
af
7.5.9
terms the potential loss would be:
Current spend attributed to car drivers
Potential loss of spending

£27.6m x 64%16 =
Continued spending if charging introduced:
Car drivers still visiting
Spend from drivers visiting less often
£17.7m x 60% =
£17.7m x 20% x 50% =
£17.7m
£ 10.6m
£ 1.8m
£17.7m-£10.6m- £1.8m = £ 5.3m

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 in
the order of £2.8m-3.0m under the two different scenarios in relation to
Saturday visits.
Dr
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 consider
giving 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 be
difficulties 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 equates
to £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
49
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
t
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
af
7.6.4
7.6.5
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
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 economic
benefit would be in the order of £120,000 a year.
Journey time savings to St Leonards residents

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 week
Dr
then 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
50
Table 7.1: Economics costs and benefits
Additional costs to residents 90,000

Loss of income to town centre 2,800,000- 3,000,000
Additional costs to businesses 3,200
Sub total 2,893,200-3,003,000
Gain of income to town centre 620,000
Congestion relief 120,000
Journey time savings 2,500
Sub total 742,500
t
Total disbenefit 2,150,700-2,260,500
7.8 Options
af
7.8.2
No change
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 any
economic 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.
Dr
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 hour
pay 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.
51
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 motorists
entering. 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.
t
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 presented
within 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 weak
position and equally, to allow the current parking behaviour to continue will also
af
7.8.7
7.8.8
7.8.9
be damaging to the existing economy and will reduce the potential benefits
likely to arise over time from the regeneration programme.
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.
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.
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
Dr
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
52
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.
t
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
af
7.8.15
deter all day parking but create more convenience for visitors, especially around
the mid-day shopping peak period.
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 being
used. 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.
Dr
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 of
retail 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 of
congestion 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.
53
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 in
West 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.
t
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.
af
Rye T (2006) Motoring towards 2050: some issues arising from the RAC Foundations’ recent
report Transport Research Institute, Napier University
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
Dr
Sector Final Report
ESCC Central St Leonards Shopping Survey – September 2006
TRL - The impact of a controlled parking zone in Barnet, J.Smith 1992
54

Economic Impact Parking Controls

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Economic Impact Parking Controls

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

t

Prepared by: Approved by:

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

Table 2.1: Economic activity rates – Central St Leonards 3

Car park demand relating to additional retail

Figure 2.1: Main mode of transport to local convenience store 12

1.1 Economic impact assessment study

1.2 Regeneration context

 Make it easier for shoppers to park near shops

The document currently sets out the background research, consultation,

2.1 Socio-economic background

Proportion of those of Unemployment rate –

Table 2.2: Benefit claimants Central St Leonards – February 2007

Table 2.3: House ownership

Central St Hastings South

2.3.2 In assessing affordability consideration needs to be taken of incomes, data is

Table 2.5: Average weekly income in Hastings

Average and Weekly income

So average weekly expenditure across all households is £443 of which £62 or

Table 2.6: Weekly household expenditure

All Expenditure Savings Percentage of Increase in

2.3.7 Where a car is owned it is appropriate to consider the affordability of the

Source: East Sussex County Council

Table 2.8: Annual permit charges for selected authorities

Cost of Residents and Business Permits

Lewes £15 £130 Permit cost related to emissions, and

af Preston City Council

Plymouth City Council

Chiltern District Council

Higher cost payable if it is your

Charge depends on zone

2.4 Parking charges

2.5 Present retail offer - Hastings Retail Study

Table 2.9: Floorspace Composition - St Leonards

Use Class Number Of Units Percentage of Units

The study reported “a severe deficiency of parking provision for shoppers

Table 2.10: Change in retail provision by road 2004-2007

2.6 Economic Impact of Parking Controls

Description of miles/year Driving time Parked at or Parked at or Parked

Parking and shopping

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

Walk Bicycle Bus Car

2.7.5 A similar survey in Hastings4 reported that 77% of shoppers wanted an

A frequent quoted rationale for controlled parking in retail areas is to increase

Previous shopper/visitor survey in St Leonards

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

Walk Car Other

Source: ESCC shopping survey

A high proportion of visitors to St Leonards are retired, nearly a third, a similar

Table 2.15: Economic activity of visitors

Table 2.16: Travel to work by mode

Table 2.17: Travel to work by distance

Distance travelled to work Central St Hastings

Economic context summary

The characteristics of employment in the area suggest that it is a relatively low

Taking into account the economic characteristics of St Leonards the evidence

3.1 Current Off street parking provision

Table 3.2: Marina car park daily use

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Total

af to accommodate a substantial increase in volume. Average revenue is just over

Current On-street parking provision

Current parking management

With some exceptions the majority of on-street parking in the St Leonards

 Scheme K – Limited Waiting Mon – Sat 9 am to 6 pm maximum stay 2

Make it easier for shoppers to park near shops

Scheme K – Limited Waiting Mon – Sat 9 am to 6 pm maximum stay 2

Existing enhancements and road safety measures are leading to a