Burpham People Power Wins Delay in New Car-parking Restrictions at Sutherland Park

Published on: 23 Oct, 2019
Updated on: 24 Oct, 2019

People power won the day at Guildford Borough Council last night (October 22) when residents from Burpham forced a decision, of sorts, from reluctant council officers, on new parking regulations at Sutherland Memorial Park.

Enforcement, it seems, will not happen.

Rule changes at Sutherland Park were introduced in May (2019) as part of a blanket policy to prevent inconsiderate nuisance parking, such as commuter vehicles in car-parks near stations.

But public speaker after speaker at the GBC Executive Committee meeting claimed most in the Burpham community were unaware of the council’s consultation on the change.

Images of the Sutherland Park car park presented by a public speaker, during the debate, showing many empty spaces. Council officers said that this was not necessarily typical.

They emphasised that the new regulations would mean no return within a four-hour period, difficult for parents delivering and collecting children and preventing other users, including bowling club members, from attending events.

And they pointed out, there is no problem with commuter parking at Burpham because there is no station near by.

Sutherland Park – Google Maps

The council report had stated: “The consultation included emailing all tenants located on the park.

“We reviewed over 90 representations from the consultation, which included consultation on proposed parking restrictions at other parks in the borough, none of which objected to, or even referred to, the ‘no return’ element.“

A petition with 546 signatures had been presented at the full council meeting on October 8 and a recommendation agreed, “To temporarily cease enforcement of the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) at Sutherland Memorial Park Car Park and undertake a review as part of the annual parking business plan…”.

But the Executive meeting was advised that to lift or suspend the new regulations was not within its power.

Council officers said lengthy policy review and consultation process, lasting six months or more, would be needed but they were also resistant to officially pause enforcement action in the interim even though a hold on such action already appears to be in effect: no tickets have been issued since the new restrictions were published.

Cllr Caroline Reeves

Unusually, the council leader, Caroline Reeves (Lib Dem, Friary & St Nicolas) allowed members of the public to speak from the gallery.

This naturally less formal, non-confrontational style worked well, overall, allowing several attendees, with strong feelings on the subject, to have their say. All spoke reasonably and persuasively about how the restrictions were, unnecessarily, impacting on their daily routines.

Pauline Searle (Lib Dem, Stoughton) lead councillor for Countryside, Rural Life, and the Arts, had introduced the debate saying: “As far as the council’s concerned… the car-parks should be used for the priority of Park users, to be able to use the amenities, and by the tenants of the parks and they must come first.”

Cllr George Potter

Cllr George Potter (Lib Dem, Burpham) said: “Awareness of the [public] consultation was very low”… No one, he added, had commented on the no-return aspect which, if it had been clearly advertised, he would have expected at least some public response.

“Unfortunately… the consultation was just on how do we implement these changes, not on the policy itself.

“When it comes to Burpham, this broad-based policy is a solution in search of a problem and we have caused far more problems than we have solved.”

He proposed that residents be asked whether the car park should be for Park users or a car-park for the Burpham community.

Responding, with what might have been a Freudian slip, the council leader said: “Thank you, Cllr Parker.” Cllr Susan Parker was a GGG Executive member until her recent resignation.

Cllr Reeves tried to sum up saying: “Legally, we can’t agree this recommendation [from full council] as an Executive but what we can do is agree that we will have a new consultation and we will ask our enforcement team not to enforce [the new restrictions] at this site.”

But council officers equivocated and the debate continued.

John Rigg

John Rigg (R4GV, Holy Trinity) said: “I have been very impressed by all the speakers tonight. We’ve got the point. I think we’re saying we’ll do everything we can as soon as possible.

“We’ve had confirmation there is no need for a four-hour ban on returning… we just have to go through the available processes.”

But later he seemed, however unintentionally, to muddy the water by saying: “Authorities can’t suddenly decide not to enforce regulations.

“The best they can hope to do is give you the message that they’re giving. That is 100% on your side. No authority can suddenly say we are unilaterally going to stop enforcing things.”

Cllr Potter asked whether signs could be posted, stating that enforcement would not be not in operation at the car park, a request that appeared to anger Cllr David Goodwin (Lib Dem, Onslow).

Chris Wheeler

Council officer Chris Wheeler said: “In terms of enforcement, we look to deter behaviours that are problematic for the parks, so why I recommended that we maintain the controls earlier is that if problems occur that we need to resolve we can use the controls to resolve them.

“At the moment, I am not aware of any particular concerns or complaints about the use of the car-park and until such time as we do I don’t intend to send officers in that direction on a regular basis.”

It was agreed that the TRO would be re-considered and the car park policy reviewed separately.

The GBC webcast of the meeting can be found here.

Share This Post