On Thursday 11 June, representatives of the East Sussex County Council together with Councillors Galley and Claire Dowling presented to 10 members of the Executive Committee of the Uckfield & District Chamber of Commerce the latest ideas for changing the car parking arrangements in Uckfield High Street. This follows the petition of 5,000 signatures against removal of car parking and the town referendum. The latest plans show a reduction in spaces from 43 to 23 in the section of the High Street from Hempstead Road/Church Street junction to River Way. The Chamber remains totally opposed to the removal of so many spaces. This will have an adverse effect on the health and prosperity of the High Street.
The Chamber also remain extremely concerned at the proposed long period of disturbance in particular the impact this will have on High Street retailers. The Council’s preferred option of implementation is a 32 week programme. Stage 1, in Autumn 2014, was only 9 weeks’ long but saw a massive drop in footfall to the town and brought many traders to their knees. An extended programme of works could have a significant impact on the financial stability of the town well beyond the High Street.
President Fiona Monson of Armida Chartered Accountants said “Whilst the York Stone installed at the bottom of the High Street has improved the look of the pavements significantly, we question whether it is worth 8 months of significant disruption. We have asked the East Sussex Project Board to look at whether there could not be significant savings in time and cost by using tarmac or another surface which would be quicker and easier to lay.”
High Street retailer and Vice President, Mark Arno of Carvills Furnishings added, “The High Street is constantly evolving to deal with the competition from the internet and larger towns and I would say has a done a decent job so far. Shoppers get into habits as to where they shop and with the degree of disruption and inconvenience that the proposed works will cause these habits will change – people will shop more on line to save congestion and avoid the town for other shopping. It could take years to get a sufficient number of them to change their habits again and come back.”
The committee are also very concerned that the approval of 1,000 new homes at Ridgewood Farm is going to put further significant impact on the local road network. Several committee members expressed the view that traffic flow was perfectly acceptable as it is and that retaining parking was more important.
The Chamber also asked the Project Board to consider funding a business rates holiday for retailers for the duration of the works to help mitigate the impact.
The Chamber committee are also calling an emergency members’ meeting at 6.00 pm on Wednesday 8 July at the Ashdown Room at Uckfield Civic Centre to canvas the views of the full membership on the revised plans and proposals for traffic management.
For further comments please contact Fiona Monson on 01825 746652 or 07786 252145 email: fiona.monson@armida.co.uk
Feedback from Uckfield Chamber Committee on plans for High Street improvements and traffic flow options further to meeting on 11 June 2015
The revised plans
Whilst we recognise that you asked us to comment on the traffic flow issues rather than the revised plans, we believe it is appropriate for us to formally address the concerns we have regarding the revised plans both from our personal perspectives and in relation to our perceived response from our members.
Whilst we appreciate that you have been prepared to reconsider the plans in the light of reaction from the townspeople and traders and the referendum on parking, we do not believe that the revised plans make a sufficient retention of parking or that the proposed work justifies the significant impact it will have on the town’s retailers and whilst we accept that they are an improvement we remain opposed to them.
Parking
The plans allow for the retention of 23 parking places from the current 43. Of these we note that only 5 spaces are retained on the East side of the main High Street. One reason for this appears to be to move the bus stop from its current location outside Lloyds Bank to a site much further down the High Street. Given the new site’s proximity to the bus station we question the need for a bus stop so near the bus station.
It appears generally that the spaces being retained are those that were to be designated as loading bays and disabled spaces. This raises the question of how the disabled who struggle to walk from the disabled spaces in Luxford Field car park to and around a hilly High Street will manage. Given that one purpose of the High Street revisions is to speed up flow on the High Street it also suggests that delivery vehicles will continue to double park and block the High Street and thus cause traffic delays.
We are still unclear why more spaces cannot be retained in the High Street. You stated that it is necessary for buses to have pull ins at the bus stops but our experience is that buses do not cause any significant delay on the High Street. (We also fail to see the need for bus shelters to be provided on the High Street).
Whilst we acknowledge that a few spaces (such as the one outside Superdrug) do cause delays and can be dangerous, we do not believe that applies to most spaces and indeed that there are a couple of places where new spaces could be created.
We are concerned that some of the tree pits will be placed where parking spaces could be placed and question whether the flooding issue could either be addressed by upgrading and cleaning the current drainage system or by building the pits but without the need to plant a tree on top. We also have concerns that the trees will attract birds that would then defecate on the new paving.
We still have some uncertainty over exactly what the Board is seeking to achieve by removing the parking. There is a strong indication that the main purpose is to improve traffic flow and clearly where spaces are dangerous to improve safety but there was also mention at last week’s meeting of the need for buses to pull in (which I presume also improves traffic flow) and there is some debate over whether there is a desire to improve the shopping experience and access. It would be helpful if you could comment on this and provide a breakdown of the reasons for removal of each of the 20 spaces that are being lost.
Necessity for the works at current spec
At the meeting you commented that the surveys of townspeople in 2012 indicated that there was a desire for an upgrading of the look of the town. Whilst we acknowledge that there is room for an improvement to the appearance of the town, the nature of the buildings in the town and the lack of historic interest and other draws for the town means that the main reason people will come into the town other than to work or to commute will be because they are interested in visiting certain shops, banks or other retailers. Whilst this experience may be enhanced by attractive paving, safe road crossings, street furniture and improvements to the bus service, these will be of no value if the shops are empty. Our professional experiences and the impact of just nine weeks’ of works in Autumn 2014, have shown that many retailers will be unable to survive the huge fall in takings that they will experience both during and for some time after the works take place. In addition, landlords are already experiencing uncertainty and concerns from potential tenants and existing tenants whose leases are facing renewal. Many will chose not to come to Uckfield or will look to move out of town when under the threat of extensive roadworks. This would produce a vicious circle that as more and more shops are vacated there will be less and less interest in taking out new leases and the High Street will increasingly become a retail ghost town.
We would also note that whilst the works in Autumn 2014 only physically took place in a small area of the High Street between Bell Lane and Framfield Road the financial impact of both the drop in footfall and the huge delays and traffic jams caused by the diversions impacted across the industrial estate and upper High Street and beyond.
Whilst we do not wish to suggest a Luddite attitude towards the improvements and we do appreciate the interest in upgrading the town, we have some concerns whether the upgrades are worth the pain that will fall particularly on the High Street retailers and as we stated at the meeting whether they should be performed to a lower specification, for example by the use of tarmaccing rather than York Stone paving, which will both reduce the work timescale and allow the moneys saved to be used to pay for night time and weekend working.
Business Rate Rebate
Whilst it will have only a small impact compared to our perception of the fall in footfall during the works, it would be very helpful if we could work with Wealden District Council to agree a basis for rate reduction for High Street businesses on a calculated methodology rather than an individual application, ideally before the works commence.
Traffic flow options
At the meeting Graeme Lake asked our views on the options for traffic movement during the period of roadworks. Whilst we would ideally ask that the plans are reconsidered to account for our views above and indeed further comments from the Town Council and public in due course, we have given some consideration to this matter and we appreciate you allowing us to comment.
The options presented were as follows:
Contra flow with the use of traffic lights
One way traffic either North or South with the other directional flow being diverted via the bypass
Evening working only
Complete closure of the High Street
Completion of small stretches of road at one time retaining two way traffic via traffic lights
As Mr Lake stated some of these options may not be financially viable.
Whilst as stated above we would ideally like to see the time period of the works reduced by reconsideration of the finish for the pavements to a lower specification which would be faster to build, our prime concern is that the substantial delays experienced particularly on the industrial estate by the works in Autumn 2014 are avoided. Whilst we appreciate Mr Lake has considerable experience in dealing with traffic delays caused by roadworks we are concerned that many of his views on the different options appeared to be based on a gut instinct and “back of a fag packet” estimates rather than full projections. Having said that we believe the delays caused in Autumn 2014 were not predicted by the traffic projection software which was applied.
We do not profess to be experts in this area. However we believe that a closure of the entire High Street albeit for a shorter period than the other options is unacceptable. Whilst we can see the logic of having one way traffic as was applied in Autumn 2014, we feel there is a psychological impact in retaining the feel that there is a traffic flow and that the town is still open if two way traffic is retained. We do however have reservations on how severe the delays could be implementing this option.
Impact of Station car park
We would also express concerns regarding the impact which the opening of the new station car park will have on commuter parking combined with the enforcement of 3 hour restrictions in the off street parking. We are aware that many commuters currently use Luxford Field car park as an all day car park whilst others use the roads in the lower part of New Town (around Bridge Farm Road) and Bell Lane. We believe that many commuters will not be prepared to pay to park at the station car park and on-street parking will increase. We hope that the Council will keep this under review and consider whether it is appropriate to introduce a means of parking restriction which will prevent commuter parking whilst still allowing the Bell Walk business employees to park. This could run along the lines of a parking restriction for a short period in the middle of the day or by restricting parking on one side of the road in the morning and the other in the afternoon. We do appreciate that to be effective such a restriction needs to be enforced which has cost implications though it is possible this could be covered by fines imposed.
There is also concern that the increased ability to park at the station (albeit at a cost) may attract more commuters to the town, for example to avoid the higher parking charges and fares at Haywards Heath, and that the net gain in spaces you have referred to will be offset by the increase in users and indeed drivers through the town. Network Rail’s plans to lengthen the platform seems to support the view that they are expecting use to increase.
Ridgewood Farm approval
Whilst this is a separate issue, we also note that planning has been granted for the building of 1,000 new homes at Ridgewood Farm. As has been stated in the Chamber’s letter of 28 March 2015 to Wealden District Council, whilst we recognise that a larger population will bring more opportunities into Uckfield, we do not believe the current infrastructure can cope with this additional number of cars even with the proposed improvements to the High Street. Specifically we believe it is critical that the parts of the A22 which bypass Uckfield is dualled to prevent gridlock.
Canvassing views
As you will see from the attached Press release we are calling an emergency full meeting of our members on 8 July to allow our members to express their views and to assess the feelings of the full membership on the revised plans and the proposals for traffic management.
As you are aware many High Street traders are not members of the Chamber and there is of course impact on residents and other traders so we would respectfully suggest that you consider calling a public meeting to allow these people a voice.