Survey of Lewes Car Parks · 2017-07-19 · Survey of Lewes Car Parks Mott MacDonald, Mott...

Survey of Lewes Car Parks

Final Draft

August 2010

Lewes District Council

250100 ITD ITL 1 7

P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\Lewes Parking Study\To LDC

25.05.10\Lewes_Parking_Survey_Report_100526 v7 FINAL.doc11 May 2010


August2010

Lewes District Council

Southover House, Southover Road, Lewes, BN7 1AB

Mott MacDonald, Mott MacDonald House, 8-10 Sydenham Road, Croydon, CR0 2EE, United Kingdom T +44(0) 20 8774 2000 F +44 (0) 20 8681 5706 W www.mottmac.com


Mott MacDonald, Mott MacDonald House, 8-10 Sydenham Road, Croydon, CR0 2EE,

United Kingdom

T +44(0) 20 8774 2000 F +44 (0) 20 8681 5706 W www.mottmac.com

Revisio

n

Date Originator Checker Approver Description

1 19/06/09 Neil Brown Chris

Swiderski

Andrew

Jones

First Draft

2 05/08/09 Neil Peters AndrewJones

Second Draft

3 13/08/09 LindsayFrost (LDC)

Feedback from client

4 16/10/09 AndrewJones

Cara Peretti Peter Crane Third Draft

5 15/101/10 LindsayFrost

Further feedback fromclient

6 28/01/10 Neil Peters

7 26/05/10 Neil Peters MatthewRing

Peter Crane Final

8 03/08/10 Lindsay

Frost

Neil Peters Peter Crane Comments from LDC

members

Issue and revision record

This document has been prepared for the

titled project or named part thereof and

should not be relied upon or used

for any other project without an

independent check being carried out as to

its suitability and prior written authority of

Mott MacDonald being obtained. Mott

MacDonald accepts no responsibility or

liability for the consequence of this

document being used for a purpose other

than the purposes for which it was

Mott MacDonald accepts no responsibility

or liability for this document to any party

other than the person by whom it was

commissioned.

To the extent that this report is based on

information supplied by other parties,

Mott MacDonald accepts no liability for

any loss or damage suffered by the client,

whether contractual or tortious, stemming

from any conclusions based on data


Mott MacDonald, Mott MacDonald House, 8-10 Sydenham Road, Croydon, CR0 2EE, United Kingdom T +44(0) 20 8774 2000 F +44 (0) 20 8681 5706 W www.mottmac.com

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010

P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\Lewes Parking Study\To LDC25.05.10\Lewes_Parking_Survey_Report_100526 v7 FINAL.doc


Chapter Title Page

1. Executive Summary i

1.1 Overview ___________________________________________________________________________i

1.2 Consultation _______________________________________________________________________iii

1.3 Demand Management________________________________________________________________ iii

1.4 Park & Ride________________________________________________________________________iii

1.5 Redeveloping Existing Car Parks _______________________________________________________ iv

1.6 Existing Car Park Expansion and New Sites_______________________________________________ iv

1.7 Future Parking Scenarios _____________________________________________________________ v

1.8 Recommendations __________________________________________________________________vi

1.9 Next Steps________________________________________________________________________ vii

2. Introduction 1

2.1 Study Purpose______________________________________________________________________ 1

2.2 Methodology _______________________________________________________________________ 1

2.3 Outputs and Report Format____________________________________________________________ 2

3. Survey Context 3

3.1 Survey Background__________________________________________________________________ 3

3.2 Historical Development _______________________________________________________________ 3

3.3 National and regional policy context _____________________________________________________ 9

Local context9

3.4 Detailed Lewes District Council and ESCC policies _________________________________________ 9

3.5 Local Transport Plan________________________________________________________________ 11

3.6 ‘Signposts to 2010: a spatial strategy for Lewes’ __________________________________________ 11

3.7 Existing Transport Provision __________________________________________________________ 12

4. Methodology 15

4.1 Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 15

4.2 Assessment Process________________________________________________________________ 15

4.3 Assessment Spreadsheet ____________________________________________________________ 16

4.4 Consultation ______________________________________________________________________ 19

5. Parking Operations 21

5.1 Parking Operations _________________________________________________________________ 21

Existing Public Car Parks _______________________________________________________________________ 25

Restricted Public Access _______________________________________________________________________ 28

Permit Access________________________________________________________________________________ 28

On Street Parking Provision _____________________________________________________________________ 28

Private Non Residential Parking (PNR) ____________________________________________________________ 30

5.2 Demand Management_______________________________________________________________ 31

5.3 Park & Ride_______________________________________________________________________ 33

5.4 Redevelopment of existing car parks ___________________________________________________ 35

5.5 Expansion of existing car parks________________________________________________________ 37

5.6 Redevelopment incorporating car parking________________________________________________ 39

Content


5.7 Potential New Car Parking Sites _______________________________________________________ 40

5.8 Car Clubs ________________________________________________________________________ 41

6. Potential Parking Scenarios 43

6.1 Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 43

6.2 Car Park Expansion and Development Options ___________________________________________ 45

6.3 Possible Scenarios _________________________________________________________________ 46

7. Conclusions and Recommendations 49

7.1 Overview _________________________________________________________________________ 49

7.2 Strategies ________________________________________________________________________ 49

7.4 Implementing the recommended Strategy _______________________________________________ 51

Appendices 54Appendix A. Brief for the study __________________________________________________________________ 55

Appendix B. Assessment Worksheets_____________________________________________________________ 69

Appendix C. Notes of stakeholder meeting _________________________________________________________ 70

Appendix D. Data from Car Park Ticket Machines ___________________________________________________ 71

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\Lewes Parking Study\To LDC 25.05.10\Lewes_Parking_Survey_Report_100526 v7 FINAL.doc

i 250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



1.1 Overview

1.1.1 Existing and proposed development in Lewes, together with increasing

overall traffic levels, are exerting pressure on the provision and

operation of parking in the town. The natural topography and historic

character of the town severely limit options for change, while both the

demand increases and competition from neighbouring towns intensifies

the pressures for suitable parking facilities.

1.1.2 The purpose of this study is to inform a number of planning and

development processes and to provide guidance to longer term

strategies for off-street parking provision.

1.1.3 It is important to emphasise that the study is NOT a review of the On-

Street Controlled Parking Zone, and street parking management

processes, which are managed by NCP on behalf of East Sussex

County council

1.1.4 The approach adopted to assess the current situation and develop

potential scenarios, comprises three main components:

A review of existing and potential car park sites assessing the

current performance and options for improvement;

Consultations with interested parties to confirm the current

problems and establish attitudes to future options;

A commercial review of selected existing sites to understand

the viability of development for alternative uses.

1.1.5 As of summer 2009, there are 18 car parks in Lewes offering

approximately 1550 spaces of which 1250 spaces are available to the

public without restriction. All except five are directly owned or

controlled by the District Council and they include a mix of short and

long stay as well as permit holder use. The five privately controlled car

parks account for almost half of the publicly available space.

1.1.6 A further 7 main car parks with 1300 spaces operate as what are

generally termed Private Non-Residential (PNR) use accessible to

employees, students, members etc rather than general use by the

public.. While some are made available at weekends and evenings for

use by the public, they are outside the direct control of the District

Council but contribute considerably to peak time congestion and air

quality impacts.

1.1.7 Only 170 spaces are restricted to short stay operation (maximum stay 2

hours) with the remainder permitting drivers to stay for up to 10 hours.

1. Executive Summary

This study will help to assist

development and transport

decisions made by Lewes District

Council


This reduces the turnover in use and the availability of spaces which potentially could be achieved.


ii

iii 250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



1.2 Consultation

1.2.1 A two stage consultation process was undertaken at the

commencement and part way through the study. This helped identify

current issues and outlined potentially acceptable future opportunities:

Consolidation of car parking into a few larger car parks

Deterring cross town centre access to these car parks

Potential for larger car parks to be decked

Consider possible public use of Private Non Residential (PNR)parking

Some existing public car parks to be either reserved for specific

users or allocated for other use

1.3 Demand Management

1.3.1 The Study examined a series of prospective demand management

measures including:

Travel Plans

Workplace Parking Levy

Area or cordon tolls

Congestion Charges

Parking Controls

1.3.2 The circumstances in Lewes could not currently support the measures

outlined above , apart from travel plan initiatives and the continued use

of parking controls.

1.4 Park & Ride

1.4.1 The concept of Park & Ride based on the introduction of strategically

placed car parks on the major arterial routes with onward connection

into the town centre by train or bus has been examined.

1.4.2 The major issues confronting Park & Ride in Lewes are:

Finding suitably large peripheral parking sites, given that the

town is located in the South Downs National Park

Sustaining a suitable level of service connection between the

town and the car park

Attracting sufficient users

Financial viability of a park and ride operation in a small town.

iv 250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



1.4.3 Park and Ride can operate successfully in larger towns. However the

lack of suitable parking locations on the periphery of the town ,and the

low level of anticipated patronage, preclude this currently in Lewes.

1.5 Redeveloping Existing Car Parks

1.5.1 The redevelopment of existing car parks can offer a number of potential

benefits including:

Improvements to the urban townscape;

Additional housing (including affordable units) and other

community facilities;

Removal of anti-social or noisy activities;

Possible reduced traffic along routes to car park;

Reduced maintenance and administration of small car parks;

Capital income from the redevelopment balanced against lost

income from the car parking fees.

Six existing car park sites were examined (Cliffe High St, South St

(north), Friars Walk, West St, Little East St, East St.) Based on current

market values each could be developed profitably subject to the

resolution of flood risk and local impact constraints. However, it should

be noted that most of these car parks provide an important facility in a

part of the town where there is currently limited alternative on or off

street parking.

1.6 Existing Car Park Expansion and New Sites

1.6.1 The restricted availability of land within the town suggests that the most

realistic approach to delivering additional parking would be expansion

of the existing facilities, primarily by multi-decking the existing at-grade

car parks. Whilst this has the advantage that generally the land required

lies within the control of the existing car park owner, there are typically

a series of disbenefits including:

Potential visual intrusion of the additional decks;

Inefficiency of space utilisation resulting from ramps and

circulating aisles;

Personal and vehicular security;

Additional traffic accessing the site;

High construction costs;

Loss of income and disruption during construction;

Higher long term maintenance costs.

1.6.2 We have examined the prospects for the additional decking to four car

parks (Brook St, Phoenix Causeway, Tesco, Railway Station) which are

of the size and location which could potentially be expanded. In

addition, there are prospects for new car parks constructed as part of

v 250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



redevelopment projects in the North St and Waitrose/NCP/Wenban

Smith areas.

1.6.3 No other sites have been identified for long term surface car parking to

serve the town centre, beyond the site at Malling Brooks granted

planning permission “in principle” in 2007.

1.7 Future Parking Scenarios

1.7.1 In developing possible scenarios for future provision of publicly

available car parking, we have taken into account the following factors:

The potential to extend or add new car parks

The potential to redevelop existing car parks for other purposes

The need or desirability to make available PNR spaces at

evenings and weekends

Demand management measures

Five scenarios have been developed based around expansion or

contraction from the currently available 1250 public spaces:

Maintain Current Levels: Retaining the current levels but

examining the prospects for redevelopment of the smaller sites

and promoting other initiatives including PNR shared use and

travel plans;

Slight Contraction: Reducing the available space by 10% to

about 1125 spaces would allow the redevelopment of the

smaller car parks. Inevitably there would be more pressure on

the remaining car parks at peak times and therefore the

availability of PNR space would become more important;

Moderate Contraction: Reducing the available space by 20%

to about 1000 spaces would allow the redevelopment of most

of the smaller and medium sized car parks leaving only the

larger facilities. This would place considerable pressure on the

remaining car parks and increase the distances walked by

many visitors especially in the upper part of the town;

Slight Expansion: Increasing the available space by 10% to

about 1375 spaces could be achieved by the expansion of one

of either Brook St, Phoenix Causeway, Tesco or the Railway

Station. There would be limited opportunity to redevelop the

smaller car parks unless these were re-provided within the

expanded car parks;

Moderate Expansion: Increasing the available space by 20%

to about 1500 spaces could be achieved by the expansion of

two of Brook St and either Phoenix Causeway, Tesco or the

Railway Station. There would be an opportunity to redevelop

vi 250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



some of the smaller car parks; another option would be a major

new public car park in any redevelopment at either North Street

or NCP/Waitrose/Wenban Smith;

Significant Expansion: Increasing the available space by 30%

to about 1625 spaces could be achieved by the expansion of

three of Brook St, Phoenix Causeway, Tesco and the Railway

Station. Expansion on this scale would permit the

redevelopment of the smaller car parks in the upper and lower

parts of the town. Again, another option would be a major new

public car park in any redevelopment at either North Street or

NCP/Waitrose/Wenban Smith.

1.8 Recommendations

1.8.1 Based on the examination of current utilisation of the town car parks,

and supported by the views of local stakeholders, at the current level of

demand there is an under provision of parking spaces, particularly in

the upper town.

1.8.2 The contraction strategies would have a marked effect on the

attractiveness of the town for visitors and commuters and to be viable

would require cooperation from third parties to make available PNR

space at weekends and evenings.

1.8.3 The expansion strategies potentially lie beyond the direct control of

LDC to deliver the additional parking spaces. The investment cost in the

new car parks will be considerable, and will not be covered by the

redevelopment potential of the smaller sites alone, so the business

case for new car parks will generally have to be based on the long term

income from parking fees.

1.8.4 It is recommended that initially the Slight Expansion strategy is followed

combining the short term management measures with an expansion in

spaces of at least 125 spaces. There are a number of sites where this

additional space could be provided, but the Brook Street site has the

most obvious potential for delivery being under the control of LDC and

in a less sensitive part of the town. It also has the advantage of serving

the upper town, the area with the poorest parking supply as well as

potentially forming part of the wider redevelopment of the North Street

district. On the downside, increased public parking at Brook Street

would draw more traffic through the town centre one-way system, and

probably increase air pollution, in a part of town which is an Air Quality

Management Area (AQMA)

vii 250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



1.9 Next Steps

1.9.1 The study has identified a number of areas for further investigation or

potential improvements which are summarised below:

Review duration of stay designation.

Review permit holder parking.

Use of the PNR spaces at ‘public’ buildings.

LDC car park expansion viability.

Private car park expansion viability.

Redevelopment of smaller car parks viability.

1

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



2.1 Study Purpose

2.1.1 Mott MacDonald were commissioned by Lewes District Council (LDC)

with support from East Sussex County Council (ESCC), to conduct a

survey of off-street car parks in the town of Lewes A detailed brief for

the study is attached at Appendix A.

2.1.2 In brief, the purpose of the survey is:

To inform the evolving Local Development Framework (LDF), which

will set long term planning policies for Lewes District, and the county

wide Local Transport Plan 3

To assist the Local Authorities in responding to development

proposals in Lewes, especially an any future planning application for

the North Street area (also known as the Phoenix Quarter

development)

To assist the Joint Parking Board for Lewes in its policies for

integrated management of street and off street parking for Lewes.

2.1.3 It is important to emphasise that the study is NOT a review of the on

street Controlled Parking Zone, and street parking management

processes, which are managed by ESCC, nor the related charging,

enforcement, resident permit and zonal boundary issues. Nor is it

related to any review of these matters by ESCC, in Lewes or in other

towns across East Sussex.

2.2 Methodology

2.2.1 The approach adopted to assess the current situation and develop

potential scenarios, comprises three main components:

A review of existing and potential car park sites assessing the

current performance and options for improvement;

Consultations with interested parties to confirm the current

problems and establish attitudes to future options;

A commercial review of selected existing sites to understand

the viability of development for alternative uses.

2. Introduction

This study will help to assist

development and transport

decisions made by Lewes District

Council

2

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



2.3 Outputs and Report Format

2.3.1 The principal outputs required are a series of possible scenarios

containing:

Recommendations on which car parks should be retained or altered,

for a range of total parking stock options between -20% and +30% of

the current level

Long-term strategy for off-street parking provision

2.3.2 The survey specifically excludes any review of the current Lewes

parking scheme. However, the on-street provision and controls are

clearly material to current users and future planning concepts so where

appropriate references to the on-street operations are included.

2.3.3 The layout of the report is as follows.

Executive Summary

This introduction forms the second chapter of the report.

Chapter 3 contains the survey context

Chapter 4 explains the methodology of the survey.

Chapter 5 details the parking operations in Lewes.

Chapter 6 then presents the findings of the assessment exercise,

which focussed on the development of options for future parking

provision.

Chapter 7 sets out the conclusions and recommendations of the

survey.

3

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



3.1 Survey Background

3.1.1 Existing and proposed development in Lewes, together with increasing

overall traffic levels, are exerting pressure on the provision and

operation of parking in the town. The natural topography and historic

character of the town severely limit options for change, while both the

demand increases and competition from neighbouring towns intensifies

the pressures on parking.

3.1.2 The purpose of this survey is to inform a number of planning and

development processes and to provide guidance to longer term

strategies for off-street parking provision.

3.1.3 The processes to be informed by the conclusions of this survey include:

the Local Development Framework process (LDF)

Joint Parking Management Board recommendations

Local Transport Plan (LTP3)

3.2 Historical Development

3.2.1 Lewes was established at one of the few points where rivers cut a gap

through the South Downs. It is one of the best preserved small market

towns in England. The Saxon "fishbone” street layout along the spine of

the High Street, and a wealth of buildings from all subsequent eras, are

still apparent. The historic core of the town is covered by an extensive

conservation area with many individually protected listed buildings and

trees. More recently, in April 2010, the town has been included in the

designated area for the South Downs National Park.

3.2.2 Much of the town is hilly, rising steeply from just west of the river along

a central east-west spine. After the steep hill up to the war memorial

(‘School Hill’), it then climbs less steeply to the west end of the town.

3.2.3 There are slopes either side up to this spine, with very steep streets up

the slopes, especially to the south. These gradients can be expected to

deter many who wish to access the spine route from parking at low

levels, even where distances are short. South of this spine is a shallow

valley, within which the railway station is located. To the south of this,

the land then rises very gently to Southover High Street. Unlike other

towns with a single historic core, the historic areas of Cliffe, St Anne’s

and Southover, originally separate from Lewes itself, have become

assimilated into the town of Lewes, which itself developed in elongated

east-west form along the spine of the town.

3.2.4 In the past century the town has expanded up the surrounding, often

steep, slopes of the Downs, primarily to the West and North-east.

3. Survey Context

Lewes lies within the proposed

South Downs National Park


Whilst each of these suburbs are within a brisk walk of the town centre, distances are generally greater than the 800m maximum that is commonly considered an acceptable walking distance for most pedestrians.

3.2.5 This topography and pattern of development has impacts on both

demand for parking (with smaller retail outlets still concentrated along the spine) and in potential locations for parking supply, with high quality historic environments at greater distance from the town centre than would be common elsewhere, and with steep slopes deterring people walking from potential car park locations to their destination.

3.2.6 The river acts as a barrier to movement east-west around the town, with only one road bridge and one footbridge in addition to the Cliffe Bridge which previously carried the main A27 road, but which is now effectively restricted from almost all traffic.

3.2.7 Overall, the town’s topography hinders scope to fully encourage walking

and especially cycling, except in the east of the town where many may consider distances to be too short to be worth cycling. The topography and resultant urban form dictates the route of the principal bus services , which mostly travel east - west along the High Street spine.

3.2.8 There is relatively little green space in the centre of the town, other than

close to the Castle: much of the undeveloped space is taken up by open car parks. There are a number of fine street trees. There is more extensive green space immediately outside the town centre.

3.2.9 The town’s topography has also resulted in there being just four main vehicle access routes into the town from surrounding areas. These are shown in Figure 3.1. The limited number of access routes accentuates congestion at peak periods.

3.2.10 The eastern part of the town is low-lying, and suffered severe flooding on both sides of the river in autumn 2000. Improved flood defences have now been constructed on the east bank upstream of Phoenix Causeway (completed 2004), and in the Cliffe area southwards to the far end of South Street. (completed early 2010)However, the extent of funding available for construction of further defences is uncertain and may depend on private sector investment as part of wider development schemes.

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\Lewes Parking Study\To LDC

4 25.05.10\Lewes_Parking_Survey_Report_100526 v7 FINAL.doc


3.2.11 This flooding had a severe impact on the economic life of the town. Whilst the Cliffe area, east of the river, may be better protected in future, and the industrial and commercial areas to the north east are now protected and have recovered, the effects on the North Street industrial area west of the river have been more severe and long-

lasting. This area, having suffered loss of value for its previous occupants, has deteriorated and has been the subject of proposals for a large-scale mixed-use development, which would incorporate improved flood defences for this part of the town

3.2.12 With extensive and attractive historic and Victorian residential areas,

the town has retained an unusually large number of residents in or close to the town centre: many such residents are from higher socio

economic groups. Demand for residents parking is high, and on-street space exceeds capacity at night in parts of the town, and remains high during the day.

3.2.13 Lewes is the County Town of East Sussex, and still retains many traditional functions and facilities. In addition to County Hall, the Prison, Crown Courts, Magistrate Courts and Police Headquarters each generate substantial vehicle traffic and parking demands.




6


Figure 3.1: Location Plan, Lewes

Lewes has a close relationship with surrounding towns such as Brighton, Seaford, Newhaven and Uckfield

Source: ©2009 Google Map

3.2.14 County Hall is the largest single employment centre, lying towards the west of the town in a prominent hill-top location and surrounded by large car parks, with demand overflowing into surrounding streets.

3.2.15 The town population of approximately 16,000 includes many who work in the universities to the west and a high proportion of commuters to London. Public sector, retail and industrial salaries within the town are relatively low compared to the salaries of those professionals who have chosen to live in Lewes and work elsewhere, especially London and the Gatwick area. Relatively high house prices have meant that much of the town’s work-force has to live outside the town, especially in Brighton, Peacehaven, Newhaven, Seaford and the Eastbourne and Polegate


areas. Therefore, there are relatively high commuting flows in both directions.

3.2.16 The 2001 Census indicates that around 23,000 people live and work in Lewes District, and approximately 12,000 commute in and 18,000 commute out of the district. This represents a high level of both in and out-commuting daily, and a very high proportion of these movements are made by car, with the in-commuters parking within Lewes during the day, in addition to those of residents and other visitors. Retaining its function as an important rail station for commuters, especially to Gatwick and London, a significant number of car journeys are made to access Lewes station, located in a part of town that requires travel through narrow streets in the historic centre.

3.2.17 The retail and evening leisure outlets are spread through out the upper

and lower parts of the town but the main food stores are in the lower town on either side of the river.

3.2.18 The attractiveness of much of the town has generated both the arts and tourism as important economic industries, bringing significant life to the town centre.

3.2.19 In addition to Waitrose and Tesco, a new Aldi store has been approved in principle, subject to legal agreement and Tesco have obtained planning permission to expand. Both existing superstores have adjacent car parking areas. At least for Tesco, this is only full at peak times: visual surveys suggest that a large proportion of the occupied spaces are being used to access the town centre, as well as to visit the store itself via a riverside pedestrian link. This combined store/town centre trip was the intended arrangement when the store was planned.

3.2.20 The remainder of the retail sector, comprising mainly smaller shops along the town’s central spine, cannot compete directly with stores in the much larger nearby retail centres of Brighton, Eastbourne, Crawley and Tunbridge Wells. Instead, it offers independent, high quality shopping which – combined with the attractive historic environment – gives Lewes a successful niche role.




Figure 3.2: Controlled parking in Lewes

Controlled Parking Lewes

Source: Lewes District Council



9

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



3.3 National and regional policy context

3.3.1 Simplistically, national and the former regional policy has been to

reduce the growth in demand for car travel. National policy remains as

set out in PPG13 on Transport. However, the South East Plan was

revoked in July 2010 , so there are no longer any regional policies to

provide a framework for the development of policy at the local level.

Local context

3.4 Detailed Lewes District Council and ESCC policies

3.4.1 To establish a robust local policy framework LDC, along with other

Local Authorities, is required to produce a Local Development

Framework (LDF) http://www.lewes.gov.uk/Files/plan_LDFDiagram.pdf

This will replace the previous Local Plan adopted in March 2003:

http://www.lewes.gov.uk/environment/1982.asp, and is a much more

wide-ranging document.

3.4.2 Also of particular relevance to this study is the Air Quality Action Plan

(http://www.lewes.gov.uk/Files/env_Draft_AQAP_Rpt_Sep07.pdf and

http://www.lewes.gov.uk/Files/env_Draft_AQAP_Annex__Sep07.pdf)

setting out in its section 4 a detailed set of potential actions to alleviate

air quality problems in the town centre AQMA (and also listing those

measures considered but rejected). Figure 3.3 shows the extent of the

town centre AQMA. The final version of the AQMA was approved by the

District Council in June 2009. This means that LDC have a duty to

improve air quality to meet set objectives .The primary source of air

pollution is car travel, so reducing traffic in the area will also improve air

quality

3.5.3 The relevant local planning policy document is the Lewes District Local

Plan, adopted in 2003. “Saved policies” from the Local Plan can be

seen online

(http://www.lewes.gov.uk/files/plan_LPsavedpols _070926.pdf). The

following saved Local Plan policies are especially relevant to this Study:

- T1 (travel demand management), T13 and T14 (vehicle parking), LW8

(Lewes Townscape) and LW11 (The Green Core)


Figure 3.3: Map showing extent of Lewes town centre’s AQMA

Source: Annex 1- LTP2 Contribution to Council’s Departmental Service Objectives



11

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



3.5 Local Transport Plan

3.5.1 The current LTP2 (2006-11)

http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/roadsandtransport/localtransportplan/ltp2

/downloadltp2.htm identifies a number of issues specific to Lewes

including the development of transport models to study the town centre

gyratory, potential new developments and various rail studies including

the recently completed one on the potential re-instatement of the

Lewes-Uckfield line. The LTP also sets out approaches to on-street

parking control, parking standards for new developments and initiatives

for reducing car use. In addition the promotion of other modes via

improvements to bus services (Brighton-Lewes-Ringmer), cycling

(Lewes-Ringmer) and walking (various environmental projects in the

town) are highlighted.

3.5.2 The LTP notes that the target for traffic volumes is for a maximum of

5% overall increase between 2003-4 and 2010-11, and that traffic

volumes between 1998 and 2005 had risen by 4.49% overall, but had

fallen since Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) was introduced

in 2004 (LTP2; appendix 7; Outcome Target 23).

3.6.3 A new LTP is in preparation for 2011-16 and will be submitted to

Government by ESCC in late 2010 or early 2011 (LTP3)

3.6 ‘Signposts to 2010: a spatial strategy for Lewes’

3.6.1 Despite being written nine years ago and so now somewhat dated, this

document remains the LATS (Local Area Transport Strategy) - the

principal supporting document to the LTP. It contains a number of what

were far-reaching proposals and although some specific major projects

identified in it are unlikely to come to fruition, its underlying messages

remain strong.

3.6.2 Its themes of the need for high quality local environments and good

design principles for streets other than those dominated by cars, of

having obtained community support for parking controls and charges,

and for strong leadership to promote radical traffic management, were

all ahead of their time.

3.6.3 It does not address definite investment proposals for the town at the

level of detail of other LATS: it is understood that it will be replaced by a

more conventionally structured LATS for the forthcoming LTP3.

12

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



3.7 Existing Transport Provision

3.7.1 Walking

3.7.2 As in many smaller towns, the principal modes for travel within the town

are on foot or private car. Both are widely used, yet it appears that

much walking is over very short distances in and around the town

centre, rather than for journeys in from the suburbs.

3.7.3 As a mechanism to reduce town centre parking demand (and the high

levels of pollutants emitted during short journeys with cold engines),

there would be considerable benefit to encouraging substantially higher

levels of walking from the outlying areas of town, as well as within the

town centre itself.

3.7.4 Although there are some excellent pedestrian routes and facilities (e.g.

the riverside walk from Tesco to Cliffe High Street), there is not an

extensive coherent, continuous wider network of signed and advertised

routes which could encourage longer distance walking from out lying

areas to the town or railway station.

3.7.5 Cycling

3.7.6 Whilst even the longest distances within the town are suitable for

routine cycling, the topography and the character of the road network

(exacerbated by the town centre one-way system) currently combine to

make conditions unattractive for all but the fittest and keenest cyclists.

3.7.7 The exception to this is in Cliffe, which is level, quiet and attractive for

cycling, and where the current Living Cliffe scheme specifically unlocks

the previous constraint on cycling west-bound into the town centre

along Cliffe High Street. Generally the cycle network is limited and

disconnected.

3.7.8 Buses

3.7.9 The main bus corridor in the town is the route 28/29/29A route from

Brighton through Lewes (Prison>Western Road>High St> Phoenix

Causeway > Malling Hill) and onwards to Ringmer or Uckfield and

Tunbridge Wells. This has a 15 minute service frequency to and from

Brighton on weekdays, with half hourly services to both Ringmer (Route

28) and Tunbridge Wells (Route 29) respectively. There are plans to

enhance this route with “quality bus corridor” measures, including real

time bus information.

3.7.10 An internal town bus network provides an important service for those

living in the suburbs without access to a car, but does not appear to be

widely used by most others.


3.7.11 A multi-operator scheme was piloted by Lewes DC in 1998 to encourage the use of buses for short distance travel along the east-

west spine in Lewes, but this attracted few users and was discontinued after some years. It appears that the relative infrequency of services, slow overall journey times (including waiting and loading), poor ambience of the bus stops and bus station, and very short distance for the principal journey up School Hill from the bus station contributed to the scheme’s unattractiveness to passengers, whilst offering little extra revenue to bus operators.

3.7.12 Taxis

3.7.13 Taxis perform an important role, but their scope to reduce parking demand will be quite limited, not least due to marginal cost considerations relative to the private car. They could potentially play a greater role for access to the rail station.

3.7.14 By providing access to the door, taxis, if fully (wheelchair) accessible

have a particular role for disabled people. As of 2004, just one vehicle, out of over 200 licences in Lewes District, was purpose-designed wheelchair accessible, but it is understood that such accessibility is now being required in replacement vehicles in Lewes District, which will enable taxis to play a progressively greater role in providing travel opportunities for those with limited mobility.

3.7.15 Rail

3.7.16 By contrast to buses, the rail network offers an unusually good option from towns in the surrounding area, with a high quality, frequent and generally reliable service, and with direct routes into the town from Brighton, Haywards Heath, Eastbourne, Newhaven and Seaford. Travellers from the north-west, Burgess Hill and Hassocks are, however, less well served by rail. In addition, several villages – such as Cooksbridge, Plumpton, and Glynde – also have rail services into London, albeit at lesser frequency than the towns.

3.7.17 Lewes has an exceptional rail service for a town of its size, including offering regular connections to small surrounding villages: the daytime service interval is 30 minutes in two directions, and in the other two directions, is 15 minutes or less. Not all of these services stop at the smaller stations such as Cooksbridge, Plumpton, Glynde and Wivelsfield

3.7.18 Road Network

3.7.19 Until 1969, the A27 trunk road passed through the centre of the town from the Prison to Cliffe High Street, then along South Street, with severe impacts on the town. The construction of Phoenix Causeway and, later, the Cuilfail Tunnel relieved Cliffe High Street and South




Street. These roads have since become either pedestrian precincts or roads only carrying restricted or local access traffic.

3.7.20 A ‘temporary’ one-way system was put into place around School Hill, Market Street and Little East Street, pending construction of the remaining two sections of the proposed Inner Lewes Relief Road – but this was then abandoned. The one-way gyratory system remains in place, 40 years later.

3.7.21 In the 1980s, the construction of the dual carriageway Lewes by-pass to the south of the town relieved Lewes from much through traffic. In the past few years, there have been two major improvements to the A27 – at the Ashcombe junction to the south-west of the town, and between (and including) the Southerham and Beddingham junctions to the south-east of the town: the latter has only recently been completed

3.7.22 What is relevant to the proposed parking strategy is that Phoenix Causeway has become the main access route into the town centre from all but the north-west, but serves little function in regard to through traffic. As a purpose-built highway of good quality, and connecting to the trunk road network by other purpose-built roads, Phoenix Causeway has taken on the function of a stub access route along which it would be preferable to channel traffic entering and leaving the town - and much traffic already does this.

3.7.23 As a result of the recent A27 improvements, much of the traffic that previously used the C7 minor road from the coast through Rodmell, due to congestion at Beddingham and Southerham, can now be expected to (and realistically encouraged to) divert to the route running east of the river Ouse from Newhaven via the A26 and A27. This traffic will previously have entered Lewes town centre via the historic and unsuitable Southover High Street. However, this effect will be less marked for access to County Hall, the Prison and Victoria Hospital, although such traffic has less impact on Southover High Street.

3.7.24 We understand there are no further proposed changes to the main road

network around Lewes in the foreseeable future, although improvements to the A27 between Beddingham and Polegate have been mooted previously.



15

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 The requirement of the brief is to assess which car parks within Lewes

should be included within various future overall parking stock levels.

4.1.2 In brief, the methodology behind the study has involved:

objective setting

zonal definition

assessment of existing usage of the car parks

assessment of factors affecting current latent demand where parking

supply is constrained

evaluation of future demand trends

assessment of current supply levels, including taking account of

already anticipated changes

4.1.3 The details in this report focus on the assessment of the individual

parking areas and use of a bespoke assessment tool which is detailed

in the following sections.

4.2 Assessment Process

4.2.1 The assessment of existing and future parking supply in Lewes needed

to consider a number of preliminary issues. The assessment examined:

current characteristics of all parking areas

future requirements or configuration of parking areas

potential new sites

the composite effect of all options identified

4.2.2 In order to undertake assessment of these different issues, a bespoke

spreadsheet-based assessment tool was developed. Whilst not

examining the spreadsheet mechanics in great detail, this section of the

report provides a basic understanding of the relevant issues and how

the tool was developed and then used. An electronic version of the

spreadsheet is contained on the CD accompanying this Report.

4. Methodology

16

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



4.3 Assessment Spreadsheet

4.3.1 The spreadsheet includes individual car park appraisal sheets for each

existing car park, the potential expansion of some these and a number

of possible new sites identified as potentially feasible. These are

reproduced in hard copy in Appendix B.

4.3.2 A comprehensive comparative assessment has to take into account a

very wide ranging and disparate series of factors many of which are

difficult to measure and therefore have to be judged subjectively.

4.3.3 The methodology adopted for this study was to develop 35 separate

assessment criteria that cover a wide range of topics, both objective

and more subjective. During site inspections, each of these criteria was

scored. Simplistically, the higher marks are positive in support for use of

the site as a car park, whilst low marks indicate that the site may be

better used for other purposes.

4.3.4 These 35 criteria are grouped into three broad categories:

the value of the car park to the user: an assessment of actual and

unconstrained demand (see below for how these were

distinguished)

the physical impact of the car park (and its access route) on the

fabric and life of the town

the value of the car park to LDC and the local community, compared

with potential other uses of the space

Each of these three categories represents very different conceptual

values: there is no single cost-benefit base that allows the criteria to

Example Sheet from assessment exercise

17

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



effectively be reduced to a single denominator (e.g. of economic value).

Instead, an empirically-set balance between the overall importance of

the three groups was established by summing the maximum values of

the individual criteria in each group. The relative importance of these

three groups was discussed with Lewes District Council officers and

then weighted to reflect overall impact or level of importance.

4.3.5 Two of these three main categories were also grouped into sub-

categories:

the ‘user demand’ category was divided into zonal demand (the

demand for parking within the whole zone) and demand for each

specific car park within the zone.

the ‘physical impact on the town’ category comprising the impact of

the car park itself, and the traffic impact along access routes to and

from the car park

4.3.6 As noted above, demand was assessed on both a zonal and individual

car park basis. To assess demand for parking at any particular car park,

it is necessary to look from the perspective of a person coming into the

town centre and considering in which car park they will try to park. Their

priorities in choosing which option (e.g. which car park) are going to be

influenced by their personal assessment of the balance of factors that

best meets their needs and situation.

4.3.7 In summary, the more important considerations include:

having decided to visit Lewes town centre, the first decision (very

often, a habitual, default one) is whether to drive or travel by other

mode

whether their parking location is in the right part of town to be able to

walk to their final destination – overall demand for parking will

therefore depend on the shops or other facilities available within that

part of the town – and then again be influenced by the exact position

of each car park within the zone

to a much lesser extent, they may choose where to park dependent

on the attractiveness of the immediate environment – either because

it makes the act of parking itself more pleasant, or, more likely,

because they then want to enjoy the amenities or ambience in that

part of the town

whether it is easy to find, drive to and then use a particular car park

what alternative parking is available nearby

whether the final destination is closely and easily accessible on foot

from the car park

whether they expect to be secure (both personal and vehicle

security)

how much it costs to park

whether the maximum time allowed is less than their intended stay

and whether they think there will be space available

18

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



4.3.8 The following clarifies the reasoning behind the assessment criteria,

and the relative values applied, on the individual car park appraisal

sheets:

4.3.9 “Zonal demand”: this looks at demand for parking, based on why drivers

should park in different parts (or zones) of the town and assessed these

factors:

“Visit purpose” includes local environmental quality and quality and

range of shops / quality and range of facilities

“Driving deterrence” includes congestion on approaches, road

quality on approaches and accessibility to zone

“Zonal demand” includes demand from nearest access and

alternative zones from access

“Alternative Travel Opportunities” includes cross town bus service,

edge ‘park and ride’ and park and stride length

4.3.10 “Individual car park demand”: this moves demand to the level of

individual car parks: there is some blurring between this and zonal

demand assessment, not least in the last two sub-sections outlined for

the zonal demand and assessed these factors:

“Visit purpose”

“Driving deterrence” includes driving accessibility driving time, local

congestion and accessibility into car park.

“Parking deterrence – unalterable factors” includes difficult to find,

walk access quality and distance to facilities

“Parking deterrence – changeable factors” includes cost and

maximum time period of parking, features of car park, vandalism

and security, anticipated to be full and deterrence if decked

4.3.11 “Car Park impacts on town”: this is divided into two sections: the impact

of the car park itself, and the impact of traffic accessing the car park

through the town and assessed these factors:

“Car Park impacts” includes long distance visual impact, quality of

surrounding buildings, surfacing, signage and lighting of car park,

permeability of car park to pedestrians and cyclists

“Traffic impacts of access route” includes length of access route

from edge of town, air quality (and noise) impacts, impact on

buildings along access route and impact on pedestrian movements

along route

19

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



4.3.12 “Alternative development value of car parks”: this section reflects the

economic, social and environmental benefits to the town of using a

particular location for car parking, or instead using the site for other

purposes and assessed these factors:

“Revenue value as car park”

“Residents / Private Non Residential (PNR) value as car park”

“Alternative car park options in zone”

“Alternative economic value”

“Alternative social value” / ”Alternative townscape and green value”

4.4 Consultation

4.4.1 In addition to the collation of quantitative data, consultation with key

stakeholders was undertaken to initially establish local concerns and

general attitudes to parking problems in the town together with ideas

worthy of further consideration. Subsequent consultations focused on

the presentation of alternative options or strategies and the feedback of

views on their acceptability or suggestions for variation. (Presentations

made at the meetings are contained in Appendix C)

4.4.2 The first consultation event took place on Tuesday 23rd September

2008 at Lewes District Council’s offices. Over 60 individuals or groups

were invited but only 14 actually attended, with a number sending their

apologies.

4.4.3 Following a short introductory presentation outlining the background to

the study and of the issues being considered, a wide range of views

were discussed by the group, but there was general agreement on the

approach to the survey. The general points raised are summarised

below:

Need to be aware of the requirements of the ‘top’ of the town as

well as the lower part, including parking and commercial needs

Future of shopping viability and competition from out of town, orneighbouring towns offering more parking

A specific concern was raised regarding the position of disabledbays in car parks

The need to develop the town within existing boundaries

How do rising traffic levels relate to requirements of brief?

Key to resolving parking issues is the potential North Streetdevelopment with 400 public spaces in addition to its ownneeds.

Flood risk assessment issue

Future of County Hall site.

There is a wish for a greener town with ‘humanised’ streets,and taking care of historical assets

What is the role of the town centre? As now, or niche marketretailing? Is there a need or scope for more retail space?

20

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



Scope for developing car parks at surrounding rail stations and

would this primarily serve longer distance commuters, reducingdemand at Lewes station.

Discussions over whether Lewes station should be redeveloped

as an ‘interchange’

4.4.4 During the discussion, a tentative emerging framework was tabled,

comprising:

Consolidation of car parking into a few larger car parks close tothe main access routes into town – particularly Phoenix

Causeway

Deterrence to crossing town centre to access these car parks

Potential for these larger car parks to be decked – possibly

hidden behind other building uses

Consider scope to bring in Private Non Residential (PNR) carparking into the publicly available mix where possible

Other existing public car parks to be either reserved for specificusers (e.g. residents parking) or allocated for other use (e.g.

development, open space)

If spaces are to be removed from the town, it may be preferablefor these to be on-street spaces, with space reallocated to

streetscape improvements.

4.4.5 During the second stakeholder consultation on 25th November 2008,

options for specific car parks or areas of the town were presented and

comments received. The options are summarised below and the

responses have been taken into account when developing the potential

strategies and scenarios outlined in subsequent chapters.

Phoenix Causeway car park – decked options and relocation of

day centre and surgery

Cliffe High Street car parks – options for redevelopment

Friars Walk car parks – options for redevelopment

East Street car parks – options for redevelopment

North St, Brook St car parks – options for redevelopment aspart of “Phoenix Quarter” proposals

West St – options for redevelopment

Mountfield Road – greater use of existing car parks by other

users including rail commuters and possible link road from A26

County Hall – future options

School Hill traffic reduction

Parkway station options

21

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



5.1 Parking Operations

5.1.1 As of summer 2009, there are 18 car parks in Lewes which are

effectively available to all members of the public offering approximately

1550 spaces. (NB this total includes the Aldi development site car park ,

which opened in summer 2009and the temporarily closed North St car

park where the new police station is being built) All except five,

including NCP and Rail Station car parks, are directly owned or

controlled by the District Council and they include a mix of short and

long stay as well as permit holder use. The five privately controlled car

parks account for almost half (750 spaces) of the publicly available

space. Three car parks with 560 spaces are available to most of the

public (Tesco, Waitrose and Leisure Centre) subject to duration of stay

and purchase restrictions. Another three car parks with approximately

50 spaces, controlled by LDC are reserved for permit holders only.

5.1.2 A further 7 main car parks with 1300 spaces operate as what are

generally termed Private Non-Residential (PNR) use accessible to

employees, students, members etc. These include County Hall and

Sussex Downs College. In total they account for 40% of the total off-

street parking. While some are made available at weekends and

evenings for use by the public, they are outside the direct control of the

District Council, but contribute considerably to peak time congestion

and air quality impacts as traffic goes to and from them, particularly at

peak periods. If these car parks were not provided, the parking

pressure would, in part, be transferred onto existing public car parks or

on-street spaces.

5.1.3 Excluding the 355 spaces available at Tesco, only 170 spaces are

restricted to short stay operation (maximum stay 2 hours) with the

remainder permitting drivers to stay for up to 10 hours. This reduces the

turnover in use and the availability of spaces which potentially could be

achieved.

5.1.4 Table 5.1 summarises the car park numbers and use while Figure 4.1

illustrates the location.

5.1.5 Effectively 1250 spaces are generally available to the public in Lewes at

all times. This includes all the publicly owned/controlled car parks (as

listed in Table 4.1) plus the three currently allocated to permit holders. It

also includes all except two of the privately owned/operated and Tesco

car parks. Typically, while not under direct LDC control, the privately

owned car parks have planning permission to operate only as car

parks. However, two – Aldi and the rail station – have been excluded

because the Aldi arrangement is only short term and in part balances

the temporary unavailability of North St while the rail station could

legally be restricted to rail passengers only. The Tesco car park has

5. Parking Operations


been included because the planning condition permits public access at all times.

Table 5.1: Car Park Space and Key Operational Features

Car Parks Duration

Spaces Public of stay Comment

Public owned

1 Brook St 110 Yes Long

2 Westgate Street 26 Yes Short

3 West Street 55 Yes Short

4

5

6

East Street

North Street

Phoenix Causeway

30

80

100

Yes

Yes

Yes

Long

Short

Medium

Being redeveloped

7 Friars Walk 80 Yes Short

8

9

Mountfield Road

Little East Street

60

32

Yes

Yes

Long

Long

10 Pinwell Lane 30 Yes Long

11

12

Spring Gardens

South Street (n)

16

6

Yes

Yes

Long

Short

13 Cliffe High St 10 Yes Short

Total 822

Private owned

14 NCP 100 Yes Medium

15 Corporation Wharf 70 Yes Long

16 Cockshut Rd 40 Yes Long

17 Rail Station 350 Yes Long

18 Aldi 187 Yes Short Temporary

Total 747

Restricted Access

19 Tesco 355 Yes Short

20 Waitrose 60 Yes Short

21 Leisure Centre 80 Yes Long

Total 557

Permits

22 South Street (s) 5 No Long

23 Wellington Street 8 No Long

24 Maltings (Castle Ditch) 38 No Long

Total 51




Car Parks Spaces Public Duration of stay Comment

PNR Available at

25 County Hall 362 Yes Long Weekends Available at

26 Market Street 8 Yes Long Weekends

27 Revenue & Customs 87 No Long

28 Sussex Downs College 336 No Long

29 Priory School 74 No Long

30 Bell Lane 80 No Long Redeveloped

Except 31 Southover School 54 Yes Long school hours

Total 1288

Source: Mott MacDonald




Figure 5.1: Car Park Locations in Lewes Town Centre

Car Park Locations in Lewes Town Centre

Source: Lewes District Council and Mott MacDonald



25

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



Existing Public Car Parks

5.1.6 Brook Street (110 spaces, max 10hrs) The car park lies on a

previously demolished industrial plot with ill defined layout and no bay

markings. Currently serves the surrounding industrial occupiers and

town centre businesses, plus overnight residential users.

5.1.7 Westgate Street (26 spaces, max 4hrs) Lying at the base of the old

town walls, this long, narrow site results in a space inefficient layout but

with little opportunity for improvement. It provides the only public car

park in this part of town and the first reached when approaching from

the west via the A277. The shape and sensitive location of the site limit

the prospects for commercial redevelopment.

5.1.8 West Street (55 spaces, max 2hrs) Although difficult to access, this car

park provides the main facility in the upper section of the town. The site

is too long and narrow to provide a potential redevelopment opportunity

and in any event, this would considerably reduce the parking available

to serve businesses in the upper part of the town, which has only a few,

very limited, parking alternatives.

5.1.9 East Street (30 spaces, max 10hrs) This well used small car park

provides long stay space in the upper town. The site could be readily

redeveloped.

5.1.10 North Street (80 spaces) Following archaeological investigations, the

site is now being redeveloped for a new police station which will reduce

the number of public parking spaces to approximately 50.

5.1.11 Phoenix Causeway (100 spaces, max 10hrs) This large car park is the

first reached on the approaches via the Cuilfail Tunnel and the north-

east. The layout and access are relatively poor and are in part

constrained by the access requirements of the adjacent surgery and

day centre.

5.1.12 Friars Walk (80 spaces, max 2hrs) As the most convenient car park

from which to walk to both upper and lower parts of the town, this is a

very well used shopper’s car park despite the difficult access/egress

routes. The site could potentially be developed for residential uses or

incorporated within wider redevelopment of the adjacent retail units, but

only if flood risk problems could be overcome. However this would

result in the loss of probably the highest turnover car park in the town.

5.1.13 Mountfield Road (60 spaces, max 10hrs) This long stay car park is

used relatively little, possibly because of the PNR spaces available to

the major occupiers along Mountfield Road and also because for a full

day it is more expensive than the nearby station car park, so is less

attractive for rail commuters. While potentially it could be developed for

other uses, it does provide the only public car park in this part of the

town and is the first reached on the approach from Southover.

Friars Walk Car park


5.1.14 Little East Street (30 spaces max 10hrs) This small car park lies on the inside of the A2029 gyratory and is easily accessible. It could be redeveloped for other uses and improve the townscape in this part of the conservation area.

5.1.15 Pinwell Lane (30 spaces max 10hrs) This difficult to find, or access,

location close to the station is well used by those ‘locals’ that know about it. Unlike the station car park, it does permit short stays and is more expensive for full day use. It could potentially be redeveloped but access along Pinwell Lane would restrict the type and scale of development, and flood risk issues would constrain some forms of development.

5.1.16 Spring Gardens (16 spaces max 10hrs) Close to the Brook Street car park, but further from the town centre, this small site is primarily used by employees of the adjacent industrial units.

5.1.17 South Street (North) (6 spaces, max 2hrs) and Cliffe High Street (10

spaces max 2hrs) These two small car parks fulfil a very local function perhaps because of the more accessible Phoenix Causeway car parks nearby. The sites could potentially be redeveloped, but flood risk issues would need to be addressed

5.1.18 NCP Eastgate Wharf (100 spaces, max 8hrs) This privately operated

car park is accessed from the A2029 gyratory and Phoenix Causeway. The car park is well located for both parts of the town but, outside peak periods, is little used because the fees are substantially higher than the other car parks in the town.

5.1.19 Corporation Wharf (70 spaces, max 10hrs) This privately operated car

park is accessed from North Street and primarily serves long stay parking in the surrounding industrial area. It may be affected by proposals for redevelopment of the North St area

5.1.20 Cockshut Road (40 spaces, max 10hrs) This car park is owned by the Southdowns Sports Club but is available to the public and managed as part of the town’s public parking stock. The access is narrow and the adjacent, very low, railway bridge severely restricts vehicle heights There is a long walk to town or to the station.

5.1.21 Rail Station (350 spaces, max 24hrs) The car park is built on the former rail sidings and is therefore set down in a cutting below the surrounding urban area. This, in turn, produces a very unorthodox access arrangement via the Station Road/Southover Road junction. Although largely used by rail commuters, the car park is available for general use but at a flat rate fee of £4.70 per day. Currently part of the sidings is used as a storage area/rail maintenance compound but, in the recent Sussex Rail Utilisation Study, Network Rail has indicated that it would like to extend the available parking spaces because of high commuter demand.

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\Lewes Parking Study\To LDC


-


27


5.1.22 Aldi A temporary car park providing up to 187 spaces was opened in July 2009 for a period of up to two years. The site is owned by Aldi supermarkets who intend to develop a discount food store on the site after that time. This site cannot be considered part of the long term parking supply for the town.

5.1.23 Lewes District Council have provided data from the ticket machines in the car parks. This provides an approximation of the lengths of stay for cars at these car parks. Tuesday 9th March 2009 was chosen as a typical day.

5.1.24 There are some limitations to the data as it only shows the number of

tickets sold between periods when the machines are emptied.

Number of Car Park Tickets Sold, 9th March 2009

Car Park Short Term Parking

<2hrs

Medium Term

Parking

2 4hrs

Long Term Parking

>4hrs

Total % Short Term

Parking

% Medium Term

Parking

% Long Term

Parking

Friars Walk (ST) 471 0 0 471 100% 0% 0%

Cliff High St (ST) 42 0 0 42 100% 0% 0%

Cliff High St North (ST) 7 0 0 7 100% 0% 0%

Westgate St (ST) 106 20 0 126 84% 16% 0%

132 West St (ST) 105 0 0 105 100% 0% 0%

13 West Street (ST) 196 0 0 196 100% 0% 0%

Phoenix West (LT) 36 14 40 90 40% 16% 44%

Phoenix East (LT) 87 33 17 137 64% 24% 12%

East St (LT) 39 19 30 88 44% 22% 34%

Little East St (LT) 22 19 18 59 37% 32% 31%

Mountfield Rd (LT) 45 22 9 76 59% 29% 12%

Aldi* (ST) 140 0 0 140 100% 0% 0%

The Maltings (LT) 21 17 24 62 34% 27% 39%

Pinwell Lane (LT) 0 0 27 27 0% 0% 100%

Brook St &Spring Gdn 300 (LT) 0 0 83 83 0% 0% 100%

Brook St &Spring Gdn 30 (LT) 0 0 56 56 0% 0% 100%

Cockshut Rd (LT) 0 0 17 17 0% 0% 100%

North St (ST) Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed

Source: Lewes District Council *Assumed length of stay based on pricing

(ST) Short Term Car Park

(LT) Long Term Car Park

28

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



5.1.25 Five day data can be found in Appendix D.

Restricted Public Access

5.1.26 Tesco (355 spaces, max 3hrs) The supermarket car park is directly

accessed from the Phoenix Causeway on the most heavily used route

into the town. Users are permitted to stay free for up to 3 hours and

therefore the car park is well used for combined trips to access the town

centre via the riverside walk to Cliffe High Street. Tesco have

permission to expand the store’s floor space by 1134 sq metres with an

increase of 67 at grade parking spaces. The provision for free use of

the car park for up to 3 hours would remain if the planning permission is

implemented. This encourages linked trips to the town centre via the

riverside path.

5.1.27 Waitrose (60 spaces, proof of purchase) The supermarket car park is

accessed via the A2029 gyratory and Phoenix Causeway. It is only

available for people who shop at Waitrose and proof of purchase to a

minimum amount is normally required to exit.

5.1.28 Leisure Centre (80 spaces, use of facilities) Unauthorised use of the

leisure centre on Mountfield Road for long stay car parking to the town

and station forced the Leisure Centre to introduce a token controlled car

park exit system to restrict non-leisure centre use. Tokens for car

parking are provided to patrons of the leisure centre.

Permit Access

5.1.29 South Street (south) (5 spaces, permit holders) Currently used for

resident parking taking overflow from surrounding streets in Cliffe.

5.1.30 Wellington Street (8 spaces, permit holders) Currently used for

residential parking.

5.1.31 Maltings (Castle Ditch) (38 spaces part for permit holders) This site,

close to the Castle, reserves some spaces for use by permit holders.

On Street Parking Provision

5.1.32 Figure 5.2 shows the density of parking permits and the numbers of

bays per permit in the controlled parking zones in Lewes, as at October

2009.

5.1.33 Some sub-zones have less than one bay per permit. These include:

BH – Phoenix

CL – Cliffe

DO – Lansdown

DN – Station

29

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



ES – Cleve

BM – Castle

Figure 5.2: Lewes Permit Density Map

Source: Mott MacDonald

30

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



Private Non Residential Parking (PNR)

5.1.34 County Hall (362 spaces) Located on the A277 approach from the

west, the site lies on the periphery of the town. The car park is made

available for public use on Saturdays.

5.1.35 Market Street (8 spaces) LDC staff car park available for public use on

Saturdays.

5.1.36 Revenue & Customs (87 spaces) Government office building on

Mountfield Road. At present, the car park is not made available for

public use outside working hours.

5.1.37 Sussex Downs College (336 spaces) College campus on Mountfield

Road potentially looking to expand. At present, the car park is not made

available for public use outside working hours.

5.1.38 Priory School (74 spaces) School on Mountfield Road. At present, the

car park is not made available for public use outside working hours.

5.1.39 Western Road and Southover Schools (54 spaces) The car park is

made available for public use in the evenings and weekends, when it is

primarily used by local residents.

5.1.40 Bell Lane (previously 80 spaces) The redevelopment of a former

distribution depot includes the demolition of a multi-storey car park with

the residual car parking required by the new occupants.

5.1.41 Sussex Police HQ (site parking capacity not known) Although there

are a large number of PNR spaces on the site, they are required 24/7 to

support police operations. Security considerations would also prevent

any public car parking on the site. Accordingly the site has not been

considered as part of this study. The existing police station at West

Street has 14 PNR spaces. These too are required to support police

operations 24/7 There are proposals to convert the building to

residential use when the new police station opens at North St.

5.1.42 A sample survey was undertaken on 11th May to give an estimate of

the available PNR spaces at the key locations in Lewes. The locations

surveyed and the numbers of available or ‘free’ spaces are listed in

Table 5.2 below, and the statistics are included in Figure 5.2 above.

31

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



Table 5.2: Numbers of Free Spaces at PNR sites in Lewes

PNR Car Park Numberof Spaces

at Site

Numberof CarsParked

FreeSpaces

County Hall

West Side 203 203 0

East Side 111 106 5

County Hall Campus (west sideat top of hill) 48 48 0

Police Station 14 15 0

Government Buildings

HM revenue & Customs 87 28 59

Job centre 48 50 0

Leisure Centre 101 50 51

The Shelleys (Pub)approx 18unmarked 9 9

Priory School 74 75 0

Reference 29 (Priory Schooladditional) 17 17 0

Sussex Downs College 336 311 25

LDC Southover House 19 20 0

Southover C of E /Western RoadSchool 54 55 0

LDC Market Lane 15 + yard 10 5

Natural England (North Street) 16 12 4

Gorringes Auctioneers 8 4 4

BT Exchange 7 4 3

Argos 21 19 2

5.2 Demand Management

5.2.1 The control of demand by regulating the availability and/or cost of a

resource is often considered an attractive proposition but invariably

contains inherent difficulties and inequalities which impact on the

popularity and acceptability of the proposal. In terms of road use a

number of concepts, outlined below, have been suggested and trialled

but only one - parking control - is currently universally adopted. While

Travel Plans and Smarter Measures can influence travel behaviour they

do not necessarily manage demand unless associated with the other


methods of control and usually require the provision of alternative modes of journey making, which are not always viable in smaller towns.

5.2.2 Travel Plans: The use of travel planning initiatives is now becoming widespread amongst existing employers and is often a prerequisite for new development, including residential and retail uses. The types of initiative range from influencing mode choice - car sharing schemes, cycle user facilities, season ticket subsidises to organisational approaches – home working, flexible hours, and local recruitment policies. Several large employers in Lewes have travel plans in place (ESCC, LDC, Police and schools) and over time it can be expected that these will be refined and other employers will adopt similar plans. The net effect of such measures can be expected to reduce peak time traffic demand. However, in smaller towns with limited public transport, the car is likely to will remain the main mode of commuter travel for the foreseeable future.

5.2.3 Workplace Parking Levy (WPL): This is an optional local tax on PNR

car parking spaces, levied on a business, which then has the option of passing the cost onto the actual users, and therefore acting as a disincentive to car use, by employees. Although a number of UK cities have expressed interest and legislation is available for local authorities to implement schemes, none have yet commenced, although Nottingham as recently announced its intention to do so. ‘Unsurprisingly’, businesses have been vociferously against the schemes, citing contractual problems in passing on the cost; difficulties in staff recruitment/retention and unfair competition compared with out-

of-town and other non WPL towns. Studies for major city centres have suggested annual charges of £1000-£2000 per space which, in most instances, would still be considerably cheaper than the publicly available all-day parking.

5.2.4 Area or cordon toll: All non-exempt car users are charged for entering

the town and the fees can be varied during and by the day or by the number of occupants in the vehicle. The London congestion charge (a misnomer) operates in this manner.

5.2.5 Congestion Charge: The theoretical concept of the congestion charge is that charges only apply above a certain level of congestion or pollution and then are levied on the traffic causing the problems calculated by distance or speed travelled or pollutants emitted within the regulated area. Currently the technological problems and level of complexity have precluded all but a few trials.

5.2.6 Parking Controls: Limiting the availability and regulating the cost of

parking does have a significant influence on the travel habits of those that are directly impacted, but not PNR users or those driving through the area. Parking controls may also incentivise the use of low emission vehicles by differential parking charges or allocation of spaces in more convenient locations. For those that have limited choice (e.g. employed

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\Lewes Parking Study\To LDC


33

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



locally) these may be positive – use an alternative mode or car share –

or negative – fly parking outside the controlled area. While, for those

with more choice (e.g. shoppers), other options are also available such

as staying for a shorter time or going elsewhere.

5.2.7 In order to operate ‘successfully’ without damaging a town centre

economy, all of the demand management options outlined above need

to offer viable alternative travel modes. It is often suggested that the

money generated by the demand management charges can be ring

fenced to subsidise additional public transport services. In reality the

operating costs associated with the technical complexity and

administration of the systems mean that only limited ‘profits’ are

produced and the expenditure of these monies, or other public funds on

transport subsidies, is heavily regulated.

5.2.8

The circumstances in Lewes, and generally for all except large cities,

could probably not currently support any of the systems outlined above

apart from travel plan initiatives and the continued use of parking

controls. In time, new technology and national tolling initiatives may

increase the options to introduce equivalent measures across all urban

areas, with low operating costs and equitable approaches for

accommodating special needs. However, in the short to medium term

demand management (except parking control and travel plans) is

unrealistic in Lewes.

5.3 Park & Ride

5.3.1 The concept of Park & Ride to serve Lewes has a number of attractions

based on the introduction of strategically placed car parks on the major

arterial routes with onward connection into the town centre by train or

bus. The services would be available for commuters and visitors

providing a reasonable level of patronage through the day. The shuttle

buses could also provide a useful link between the upper and lower

parts of the town for those deterred by the steep climb.

5.3.2 The major issues confronting Park & Ride in Lewes are:

Finding suitably large peripheral parking sites, particularly given

the sensitivity of national landscape protection policies for the

South Downs National Park;

Sustaining a frequent service connection between the town and

the car park – generally considered to require better than a half

hourly service;

Attracting sufficient users.

34

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



Financial viability of a park and ride operation in a small town ,

where commuters and shoppers are coming from different

directions and where they will only use park and ride if there

are cheap, frequent , reliable public transport services into town

and good waiting facilities

5.3.3 We have identified four potential sites at the following locations, but

each has some inherent problems:

Southerham Grey Pit

Cooksbridge Station

Hope in the Valley

Malling Brooks

35

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



5.3.4 Those sites that are dependant on rail connections (Cooksbridge,

Southerham) would not be able to offer the requisite level of service

connection with at best hourly off peak and half hourly peak, which are

all that could be anticipated in the rail timetable.

5.3.5 Although it is expected that there would be demand at peak visitor

season, the daily use of the services is unlikely to cover operating

costs. In order to sustain a viable service, a high level of use by daily

commuters would be required. However, at present a large proportion

of these have access to PNR spaces provided by major employers. The

added inconvenience of detouring to the P&R car park, waiting for the

bus, slower onward travel to their destination, possible longer walk from

stop to office and the additional cost will not appeal to many users.

5.3.6 Park and Ride can operate successfully, as demonstrated in Guildford,

Oxford, York and Winchester. However these are much larger centres

than Lewes , serving bigger catchments for employment, retail and

tourism. The potential for bus based park and ride should not be

dismissed in the medium to longer term, when wider support for travel

plan initiatives and reduction or charging for PNR space becomes more

widespread. In the interim, the potential for trial or part-time services

operating at Christmas or the summer peak could be investigated.

5.4 Redevelopment of existing car parks

5.4.1 The redevelopment of existing car parks can offer a number of benefits

including:

Improvements to the urban townscape;

Additional housing (including affordable units) and other

community facilities;

Removal of anti-social or noisy activities;

Possible reduced traffic along routes to car park;

Reduced maintenance and administration of small car parks;

Capital income from the redevelopment balanced against lost

income from the car parking fees.


5.4.2 The ongoing redevelopment of the North Street car park for a new police station, plus some residual car parking, illustrates both the potential advantages and local concerns about loss of car parking. We have examined the potential of five sites of the size and location which appear to have the greatest redevelopment potential in the upper and lower parts of the town. We have assumed indicative type and size of development as a way of assessing potential for redevelopment. These comments are purely illustrative and do not reflect any specific plans to redevelop the site in this way.

Cliffe High Street & South Street (north)

5.4.3 These two small (total 16 spaces, 1.12 hectares) car parks are close to St Thomas Cliffe Church and the retail area. Both car parks perform a valuable role in supporting businesses in the vicinity. Residential development would be the most appropriate land use and 8 flats (13 bedrooms) on the High Street site and four townhouses (total 14 bedrooms) on the South Street have been assumed for assessment purposes. Both sites could attract an objection from the Environment Agency on grounds of flood risk. Based on local market conditions a net income after development of £850,000 might be expected. The loss of these two car parks would be relatively small both in terms of total space and impact because of the proximity of the Phoenix Causeway car park. The potential income could be greater, if part of a larger redevelopment of this area.

Friars Walk

5.4.4 This 80 space (2.1ha) car park is fronted by residential and retail use, and the magistrates’ courts. A mixed use development with ground floor retail (1250 sqm) and flats above (50 units, 84 bedrooms) has been assessed giving an income of £2m. While the scale of the development would be in keeping with the surrounding mix of uses, the economic impact of the loss of this very well used car park in this part of town would be considerable. Again, the Environment Agency may raise flood risk objections.

West Street

5.4.5 This 55 space car park is on a sloping site and surrounded by historic buildings, so the mix and design of the development would require careful consideration. Nine townhouses with up to 4 bedrooms have been assumed delivering an income of £700,000. The loss of part of the North Street car park means that West Street is the largest remaining facility in the upper town, so any redevelopment of the site and loss of this car park would have considerable impact on the businesses and residents in this area.



37

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



Little East Street

5.4.6 This Car Park is a corner site abutting Market Street, Little East Street

and East Street. It is envisaged that a primarily residential development,

perhaps including a GP or dentist surgery, could be considered offering

up to 25 flats of varying size delivering an income of £1.2m. This car

park serves both the upper and lower parts of the town and is well

used.

East Street

5.4.7 This 30 space 1ha car park is almost fully enclosed by existing

buildings. A residential development comprising 12 units of 1, 2 and 3

bedroom flats has been assessed giving a net income of £850,000. A

development at the location would be largely hidden from all but the

immediate surrounding buildings, but the loss of the long stay spaces in

this part of town maybe contentious. In addition rights of access to the

rear of the surrounding buildings will need to be verified.

5.5 Expansion of existing car parks

5.5.1 The restricted availability of land within the town suggests that the most

realistic approach to delivering additional parking would be expansion

of the existing facilities, primarily by multi-decking the existing at-grade

car parks. Whilst this has the advantage that generally the land required

lies within the control of the existing car park owner, there are typically

a series of disbenefits including:

Potential visual intrusion of the additional decks, particularly in

the conservation area , and the need for very sensitive design;

Inefficiency of space utilisation resulting from ramps and

circulating aisles, particularly on irregularly shaped sites;

Personal and vehicular security; some motorists do not like to

use multi storey car parks;

Additional traffic accessing the site and the capacity of the town

centre highway network to cater for it;

High construction costs – compared with at-grade construction

underground and decked parking are considerably higher.

Typical surface level costs are £1500 per space compared with

above ground costs ranging from £5000 to £19000 per space.

Loss of income and disruption during construction

38

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



Higher long term maintenance costs.

5.5.2 We have examined the prospects for the additional decking to four car

parks which are of the size and location which could potentially be

expanded.

5.5.3 Phoenix Causeway: The addition of one or two decks could provide a

significant facility at an easily accessible location. The main problems

would be the visual impact on the surrounding historically important

buildings and the recently refurbished adjacent surgery and day centre.

The size and shape of the site are rather awkward for an efficient two

decked car park. Potentially the surgery and day centre functions could

be moved elsewhere or incorporated into the car park development. It

may also be possible to partially lower the car park ground level,

subject to flood and ground water considerations, to reduce the visual

impact. .

5.5.4 Brook Street: The existing car park and adjacent Spring Gardens site

lies on the edge of the existing light industrial area and the prospective

North Street redevelopment area. It could be expanded with limited

impact on the existing surrounding occupiers and designed to serve the

future redevelopment. Altering the Spring Gardens road alignment while

maintaining access to surrounding properties would provide a large

regular shaped plot with easy access and capable of at least two levels

of decking without visually impacting on the wider area.

5.5.5 Tesco: In addition to the already planned at-grade extension to the

existing car park , it would be possible add one or two levels of parking

over part of the existing car park. However, there are two main issues

with this option. Firstly, additional levels could be visually intrusive

particularly when viewed across or along the river. It may be possible to

mitigate adverse impacts by setting back the upper levels from the river

and incorporating screening into the design. The second issue is

persuading Tesco to alter the car park. Apart from peak periods, the

current car park availability normally meets the customer’s needs and

there is little obvious advantage to Tesco of expanded parking beyond

the present plans, if the additional parking provided by decking is for

town centre generally, rather than the store’s own operational needs. In

contrast there are a number drawbacks including: management of the

car park, particularly separating customers from other users; poorer

customer access particularly when using shopping trolleys; car parking

operations outside store opening hours; deliveries access, disruption

during construction and ; long term maintenance liabilities. Whilst these

issues have been successfully addressed in other supermarket

locations, convincing Tesco may be difficult. The direction of any

parking fee income would also need to be resolved.

39

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



5.5.6 Railway Station: Network Rail has plans to expand parking on the site,

which could involve decking over all or part of the existing car park. In

addition to providing extra parking for rail users, the changes could also

provide a much better access arrangement. There are unlikely to be

major visual intrusion issues because the existing car park is set in the

railway cutting but the station buildings are listed which may impose

some constraints on the decking and access design. The expansion of

the car park would be predicated on the long stay rail passenger

demand and therefore will have limited impact on the short stay

demand of visitors to the town. Access to the site is through the historic

core of the town and expansion of parking could result in higher levels

of traffic on access roads to the site.

5.6 Redevelopment incorporating car parking

5.6.1 Large-scale development incorporating car parking facilities has the

potential to offer parking which can serve both the needs of the

development and the town. The opportunities for development on this

scale are very limited, but we have examined the prospects for two

areas which have previously been promoted.

5.6.2 The North Street area offers the opportunity for a large car park within

close proximity to both the upper and lower parts of the town in an area

which is less sensitive in terms of visual impact or sensitive

neighbouring areas, than many other areas in Lewes town centre.

Although separated from the town centre by the A2029 gyratory the

walking distances and gradients to the main attractions are reasonable

and road access to the site from the main routes is straightforward.

Unlocking additional car parking within this area is dependent on the

viability of a wider package of mixed use redevelopment proposals,

including the funding of flood defence measures. Some form of

partnership between the developer and the local authority would be

necessary to deliver new public car parking.

5.6.3 The redevelopment of the area bounded by the Phoenix Causeway,

Eastgate Street, the river and High St including Waitrose, NCP car

park and the former Wenban Smith site offers the opportunity for a

large car park centrally located for all the main attractions. There is

direct road access via Phoenix Causeway and short pedestrian links to

the High Street. While superficially many of the current buildings and

land uses are suitable for redevelopment, actually satisfying vested

interests and assembling land to enable whole scale master planning is

likely to be protracted. As this site is constrained in a number of ways,

any additional parking is likely to be principally for the needs of the

development itself, rather than making any significant contribution to

wider town centre needs.

40

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



5.7 Potential New Car Parking Sites

5.7.1 Aldi (80 spaces) Proposals for a supermarket and commercial

incubator units have planning permission, subject to conclusion of a

legal agreement. The site is adjacent to Tesco and accessed from

Phoenix Causeway. Once developed, the 80 spaces will be reserved

for shoppers and unit occupiers. However, construction is not due to

commence until at least 2011. Until then, it has been agreed to use the

site as paid long stay public car parking, partly offsetting the loss of the

North Street car park while the police station is being built. The

temporary car park opened in July 2009.

5.7.2 The Malling Brooks East (70 spaces) site has been granted planning

permission “in principle” by the District Council, subject to the

conclusion of a legal agreement. The proposed development is mainly

business floor space, but also includes a 70 space public car park. The

car park is at some distance from the town centre, but would provide

long stay parking for local businesses and for town centre commuters

and shoppers

5.7.3 Southerham Grey pit (600 spaces) This former quarry lies adjacent to

the A27 and mainline railway and could potentially offer a site for a

large “park and ride” car park with access to the town, via either the

railway or shuttle bus services. In addition the new station could

operate as a parkway giving rail access to longer distance commuter

trips and offering relief to the town centre station car park and approach

routes. However, there are major problems in delivering this option. The

quarry site is within the South Downs National Park. It is a SSSI for its

geological interest and has a difficult road access. While the railway

runs adjacent, the high cost and operational disruption required to

implement a new station is very unlikely to appeal to Network Rail or

train operators. In conclusion, while offering considerable potential

there appears little prospect of delivering this option.

5.7.4 Cooksbridge Station (300 spaces) The existing station on the line

between Lewes and Plumpton could operate as rail based Park & Ride

or parkway station for services towards Gatwick and London. However

the existing car park is very small and, while there is an adjacent timber

yard, there is no indication that this is available for alternative

development. In addition, the existing train service is primarily limited to

weekday peak time operation with few services stopping during the

middle of the day or evenings and none at weekends with little prospect

of increasing the number of trains stopping. Finally, the Cooksbridge

Park & Ride would only attract drivers approaching from the north via

the A275, which is a very small proportion of the vehicle movements

into the town. In conclusion, there is limited potential for this option and

little prospect of delivering. The area south of the station is open

countryside forming part of the South Downs National Park.

41

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



5.7.5 Hope in the Valley (100 spaces) Various options for edge of town sites

with easy access to the A27 and the potential for Park & Ride have

been investigated. The Hope in the Valley site is typical, lying close to

the Ashcombe roundabout (A27/A277) and within the South Downs

National Park, but requiring either agricultural land or open space to

provide the parking considerable area. At this time, none of the sites

are readily available and would face environmental and planning policy

obstacles before they could be implemented.

5.7.6 Malling Brooks West (150 spaces) Located in South Malling, this

privately owned greenfield site is too far for easy walking to the town

centre and is unlikely to be viable as a Park & Ride option. It has

planning permission for mixed use development.

5.8 Car Clubs

5.8.1 Car clubs are a method of car sharing, allowing members to experience

the benefits of car ownership without the hassle and expense. They are

already popular in Europe and America and are expanding in the UK.

There are plans to implement schemes in Lewes from August 2010

onwards, with two low emission vehicles initially based in dedicated

spaces at the Pinwell Lane and East St car parks

5.8.2 Cars are parked in reserved on-street or off-street parking spaces,

close to homes or workplaces and can be booked on-line or by

telephone, months ahead or at a few minutes notice. Vehicles are

serviced and maintained by the car club, which means members do not

have the expense or inconvenience of dealing with servicing, repairs,

MOTs, road tax and cleaning. Membership also includes

comprehensive insurance. Personal or business memberships are

usually available. Usually there is an initial joining fee payable when

membership commences and an annual fee payable each year.

5.8.3 Rental rates are low and additional incentives, for example, include 50

miles of free petrol each day.

5.8.4 Research shows that car club members who previously owned a car

reduce their overall travel and cut their car mileage by more than half,

making greater use of public transport, cycling and walking. Moreover,

car clubs often result in older, higher polluting vehicles coming off the

road with their replacement being the low emission car club vehicles. In

time, there will be scope to introduce electric and alternatively fuelled

vehicles, including dedicated electrical charging bays. This has big

implications for the town in terms of improving air quality, people's

health and reducing congestion.1

_________________________

1 http://www.letstravelwise.org/content63_Car-Club.html

_________________________


5.8.5 Car clubs can encourage car-owning households to function with fewer or no cars, and make significantly more of their journeys by public

2transport, cycling or on foot.

5.8.6 Car clubs wishing to develop in areas with restricted on street parking require designated parking spaces in order to function, and in turn, if these are to be on street, this means Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) are needed (DfT, 2004).

5.8.7 Off-street parking for car club vehicles is also a matter for councils, when it involves the planning process. Car club parking bays need to be stipulated and designated in low-car housing and low-car mixed developments, sometimes as part of a Section 106 Planning Agreement (DfT, 2004).

5.8.8 Where on-street parking spaces are in high demand car club bays could also be located within LDC managed off-street car parks which are not operating at full capacity the majority of the time.

5.8.9 Noisy busy roads littered with cars divide communities and foster social exclusion. Car clubs allow neighbourhoods to function with fewer parking spaces, which enable initiatives such as City Living (high density urban lifestyle with convenient access to facilities and mobility), Car Free Housing and Home Zones (a street designed primarily to meet the interests of pedestrians and cyclists rather than motorists, opening

3 up the street for social use) to succeed.

5.8.10 Car clubs reduce parking congestion (as multiple users share one car and one parking space.) In Edinburgh it has been reported that one car club vehicle typically replaced five cars although the main impact is an

4alleviation of parking problems rather than a reduction in traffic . In Brighton it has been reported that each car club vehicle removes 20

5private vehicles from the road . This data suggests the impact of car clubs can vary depending on the characteristics and public transport options in each town and city.

5.8.11 With high demand for parking spaces in Lewes, the introduction of car clubs could provide a solution to increased pressure for parking spaces.

2 Making Car Sharing and Car Clubs Work, DfT, December 2004

3 Car Club Starter Pack for Local Authorities, A Practical Guide to Car Club Development, Consultation Development, Car Plus, April 2010 http://www.carplus.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Car-Club-Starter-Pack-2010-draft-for-consultation.pdf

4 ‘Smarter Choices – Changing the Way We Travel’ Cairns S, Sloman L, Newson C, Anable J, Kirkbride A & Goodwin P (2004)

5 ‘Car Clubs – A Local Success Story’ City News, April 2009, Brighton & Hove City Council (2009)



http://www.carplus.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Car-Club-Starter-Pack-2010-draft-for-consultation.pdf

43

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 Drawing on the analysis outlined in the previous chapters, we have

developed a series of potential strategies which offer between 30%

increase and 20% decrease in publicly available parking. The

scenarios incorporate short, medium and long term measures, and

differentiate between elements which lie within LDC control or sphere of

influence and those dependent on third party cooperation and market

forces.

6.1.2 Inevitability there is a high degree of uncertainty in projects that might

come forward and the availability of funds, so contingencies and

flexibility most be incorporated. In addition, the number of possible

strategies which could be developed is large and so we have limited the

number to five although there is considerable opportunity to ‘mix and

match’ different options.

6.1.3 When developing the scenarios, we have made a number of

assumptions and included some basic elements common to all which

are summarised below:

Publicly available spaces: As defined in paragraph 4.1.5 above,

there are currently 1250 spaces available to the public. Based

on the survey brief the scenarios developed should therefore

provide a range of future public provision between 1000 and

1600 spaces.

Short/Long stay mix: the current designation of short and long

stay spaces should be reviewed with the objective of retaining

only short stay in the central areas and offering longer stay at

the peripheral car parks. An intermediate maximum of 4 hours

might be considered to deter commuters, but allow for some

longer stay visitors.

Permit Use: the designation of some car parks for permit holder

use should be reassessed. A number of small car parks in the

town could provide useful short stay space, but are currently

used by permit holders potentially staying for the whole day.

6. Potential Parking Scenarios

44

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



Flexible use of PNR parking: apart from the County Council

offices and Western Road/Southover Schools none of the

larger PNR car parks offer dual use. Although this would be of

limited benefit during the day, in the evenings and at weekends

significant additional space could be made available. In

particular, the Mountfield Road education and commercial

premises alone could make available at least 700 spaces

equivalent to over half of the current publicly available stock.

Although more remote from the town centre the existing

footbridge over the railway and footpaths could be upgraded

and a shuttle bus added on Saturdays.

Park & Ride: In the short and medium term we do not consider

that Park & Ride is a viable solution due primarily to the lack of

suitable sites, limited potential demand, and questions about

viability of such facilities in small towns.

Demand Management: With the exception of ‘traditional’

demand management measures – parking controls and travel

plans – we do not consider the other potential interventions are

appropriate for a town of the size and nature of Lewes.

Highway alterations: The town centre gyratory does increase

the distance travelled by vehicles accessing some of the town

centre car parks and increases the severance effects of

pedestrians wishing to cross the main roads. However, the

options for ‘calming’ the gyratory or re-introducing two-way

traffic without impacting on safety and congestion are limited.

Similarly, it is considered unrealistic at the present time to

anticipate new links from the south or east which give more

direct access to the Mountfield Road area and the rail station.

Information systems: As the majority of the car parks in the

town centre are small and controlled by ‘Pay and Display’, it

would not be feasible to introduce a town-wide real time space

availability system such as in Brighton. However, static signs

informing visitors of the lack of parking space in the town centre

and directing them to the larger edge of town car parks could

help reduce demand for spaces in the town centre and the

‘space seeking’ travel around the gyratory.

In drawing up these scenarios, we have assumed that all new

development will normally meet its own parking needs (based

on the parking standards) or contribute to the provision of the

required number of spaces within new car parks elsewhere in

the town, and so will not add further to the requirement for

public parking provision which might otherwise occur.

45

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



6.2 Car Park Expansion and Development Options

6.2.1 Brook Street: The development of this existing car park as a multi-

storey facility could provide a further 150-200 spaces and would lie

largely within the control of LDC. The car park would provide additional

space for the upper town area possibly permitting the redevelopment of

some of the smaller car parks for other uses. The number of affected

parties would be small, but such a proposal could be made obsolete by

any wider proposals for the North street area, unless it was considered

to be part of the wider master plan. There would be adverse impacts on

air quality in drawing more vehicles through the historic core;

6.2.2 Phoenix Causeway: Although surrounded by sensitive neighbours the

redevelopment of the current poorly laid out car park and adjacent day

centre with a multi-storey facility could provide a further 100-150 spaces

with direct access from the main vehicular route into town and

pedestrian routes within the town. The expansion could coincide with

the conversion of some smaller car parks in the area to other uses;

6.2.3 Tesco: The decking of the Tesco car park is feasible, but only places

more supply in an area where there is normally already sufficient to

meet the direct demand. It is therefore difficult to foresee why Tesco

would wish to agree to the additional decking;

6.2.4 North Street area: If redeveloped, a major new public car park could

be incorporated in a mixed use scheme for the area. This would provide

a net gain in public spaces, even if some existing car parks were

redeveloped for other purposes. This would provide a considerable

improvement in parking provision in the upper town areas possibly

permitting redevelopment of the smaller car parks for other uses.

However, there is considerable uncertainty over the timing and type of

development which may come forward. Again, there would be adverse

air quality impacts as in 6.2.1 above, unless a new access were formed

directly off Phoenix Causeway to serve the wider redevelopment of the

site. And avoid additional traffic in the AQMA.

6.2.5 Waitrose/NCP/ former Wenban Smith site : The redevelopment of

this central area could be expected to provide an additional 100-150

spaces with access from the Phoenix Causeway. However, it is not

clear to what degree, this would add to net public provision, after the

site’s own parking needs were met. A master plan redeveloping the

whole area, possibly extending to the bus station would require

considerably planning support and initiatives so could only be

considered as a long term project. Again, there could be a deterioration

in air quality.

6.2.6 Rail Station Car Park: The at-grade extension of the existing car park

onto the adjacent maintenance site appears straightforward and could

provide an additional 50 spaces. However the decking and new access

providing a further 150-200 spaces is dependent on Network Rail and

46

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



the train operator priorities. Again, there could be a deterioration in air

quality,, particularly in Station Street

6.3 Possible Scenarios

6.3.1 In developing possible scenarios for future provision of publicly

available car parking, we have taken into account the following factors:

The potential to extended or add new car parks

The potential to redevelop existing car parks for other purposes

The need or desirability to make available PNR spaces at

evenings and weekends

Demand management measures

These factors are summarised in Table 5.1 for each of the five

scenarios together with the next stages which would be required if the

strategy were to be adopted.

6.3.2 Maintain Current Levels: Retaining the current status quo with 1250

spaces does not mean that no changes or new facilities are required.

The strategy would be to largely maintain the existing parking facilities

with improvements to operating efficiency and potential redevelopment

of the smaller sites in Cliffe for other uses subject to flood risk

assessment. This provides time for other private sector led

developments to come forward and other initiatives with PNR shared

use and work place travel plans to be adopted. Should these fail to

materialise, but it is decided to redevelop the smaller sites, then the

expansion of the Brook St car park could be introduced;

6.3.3 Slight Contraction: Reducing the available space by 10% to about

1125 spaces would allow the redevelopment (subject to planning and

flood risk constraints) of many of the smaller car parks together with

one of the bigger facilities such as Friars Walk without the need for any

new parking areas. Inevitably there would be more pressure on the

remaining car parks at peak times and therefore the availability of PNR

space would become more important together with increased

enforcement and higher parking fees;

6.3.4 Moderate Contraction: Reducing the available space by 20% to about

1000 spaces would allow the redevelopment (subject to planning and

flood risk constraints) of most of the smaller and medium sized car

parks leaving only the larger facilities. This would place considerable

pressure on the remaining car parks and increase the distances walked

by many visitors especially in the upper part of the town. The availability

of PNR space would become imperative at peak periods.

6.3.5 Slight Expansion: Increasing the available space by 10% to about

1375 spaces could be achieved by the expansion of either Brook St,


Phoenix Causeway, Tesco or the Railway Station. There would be limited opportunity to redevelop the smaller car parks unless these were provided within the expanded car parks. The provision of the PNR spaces at peak times would be helpful but not essential.

6.3.6 Moderate Expansion: Increasing the available space by 20% to about

1500 spaces could be achieved by the expansion of Brook St (150-200 spaces) and either Phoenix Causeway, Tesco or the Railway Station. Another option would be a major new public car park in any redevelopment at either North Street or NCP/Waitrose/Wenban Smith. There would be opportunity redevelop the some of the smaller car parks subject to planning and flood risk constraints. Again the provision of the PNR spaces at peak times would be helpful but not essential.

6.3.7 Significant Expansion: Increasing the available space by 30% to

about 1625 spaces could be achieved by the expansion of three out of Brook St, Phoenix Causeway, Tesco and the Railway Station. Expansion on this scale would permit the redevelopment of the smaller car parks in the upper and lower parts of the town. Again, another option would be a major new public car park in any redevelopment at either North Street or NCP/Waitrose/Wenban Smith.

6.3.8 LDC could bring forward expansion of the Brook Street or Phoenix Causeway sites allowing the redevelopment of the smaller car parks for other uses. The introduction of either project would deliver an approximate 15-20% increase in publicly available space, but both would be required to reach the 30% increase. The private sector led Phoenix Quarter and Waitrose/NCP sites would be required to provide parking for their own uses and any additional space agreed with LDC so it is anticipated that either development would add only 10-15% to the overall publicly available spaces.




Matrix of scenarios for Lewes Town Centre Parking


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strategy to 2026 New or extended car parks Redevelopment of existing car

parks PNR Spaces Management Measures Next Steps

A Moderate Contraction (-20%=1000)

None Friars Walk, Little East St, East St, West St, Pinwell Lane, South St, Cliffe High St Total 250 spaces

Essential to have some extra capacity to use at evenings and weekends

Increased enforcement resources, Increase parking charges, Increase proportion of short stay spaces

Review duration of stay, Review permit allocation, Investigate development opportunities, Consult on strategy

B Slight Contraction (-10% = 1125)

None Little East St, East St, South St, Cliffe High St and either Friars Walk, Pinwell Lane or west St Total 110 to 190 spaces

Seek to use at evenings and weekends

Increased enforcement resources, Increase parking charges, Increase proportion of short stay spaces

Review duration of stay, Review permit allocation, Investigate development opportunities, Consult on strategy

C Maintain Current Level (1250 spaces)

Possible expansion of Brook St or retention of existing facilities

Expansion of Brook St (150-200 spaces) and redevelopment of Little East St, East St, South St, Cliffe High St, West St and Pinwell Lane (170 spaces)

Any negotiated prospect to provide extra supply at peak times

Parking charges increase with inflation, improved access routes to Brook St car park to serve upper town

Review duration of stay, Review permit allocation, Investigate development opportunities, Examine Brook St expansion prospects

D Slight Expansion (+10%=1375)

Expansion of either Brook St (150-200 spaces) or Phoenix Causeway (100) or Tesco (200) or Railway Station (up to 250)

None unless sufficient compensatory space is available in expanded car parks



Review duration of stay, Review permit allocation, Investigate development opportunities, Examine car park expansion prospects

E Moderate Expansion (+20% =1500)

Expansion of either Brook St (150-200 spaces) and either Phoenix Causeway (100) or Tesco (200) or Railway Station (up to 250)

New sites at North Street or NCP/Waitrose/Wenban Smith

None unless sufficient compensatory space is available in expanded car parks




F Significant Expansion (+30% = 1625)

Expansion of Brook St (150-200 spaces), Phoenix Causeway (100) and Tesco (200) or Railway Station (up to 250)

New sites at North Street or NCP/Waitrose/Wenban Smith

Little East St, East St, South St, Cliffe High St, West St and Pinwell Lane (170 spaces)




48

49

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



7.1 Overview

7.1.1 Based on the examination of current utilisation of the town car parks

and supported by the views of local stakeholders, there is an under

provision of space particularly in the upper town where the car parks

are often full or close to capacity throughout the day. It is also apparent

that many of the large scale projects which have been promoted in the

past such as new road links into the town or new parkway rail stations

are unrealistic, for the foreseeable future,, even if they were considered

desirable.

7.1.2 The current economic climate will also adversely impact on the scale,

timing and economics of new commercial developments as well as

some demand related projects (e.g. the rail station car park expansion

may not come forward if passenger numbers decline). In addition,

public sector spending is likely to contract significantly over the coming

years and will constrain the ability of the local authorities to consider

major capital items, such as new car parks.

7.1.3 More positively, it is apparent that there are opportunities to profitably

redevelop some of the smaller car parks, subject to flood and localised

impact assessment, with the proceeds potentially available for new car

parks or transport initiatives.

7.1.4 In the longer term, oil prices and environmental considerations may

fundamentally alter attitudes and use of the transport network.

However, in the foreseeable future for towns of the size of Lewes, the

private car will remain a key mode of travel and the emphasis for

forward planning has to be balancing parking and highway demands

while mitigating the adverse effects and supporting other modes. On

this basis, we have identified a range of short term management

measures and longer term strategies.

7.2 Strategies

7.2.1 Six indicative strategies have been suggested for consideration, which

represent maintenance of the current parking levels as well as various

levels of expansion or contraction from the present situation.

7.2.2 The contraction strategies would have a marked effect on the

attractiveness of the town for shoppers, visitors and commuters and to

be viable would require cooperation from third parties to make available

PNR space at weekends and evenings as well as using other demand

management tools such as the implementation of car clubs, or

incentives for low emission vehicles.. There will be additional pressure

on the remaining car parks necessitating higher levels of enforcement.

The strategies would have to be introduced gradually to be politically

acceptable and maintain the commercial viability of the town. Over time

7. Conclusions and Recommendations


substantial changes from the current in and out commuting patterns of the town plus considerable support for non-car modes could be anticipated.



51

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



7.2.3 The expansion strategies potentially lie beyond the direct control of

LDC to deliver the additional parking spaces. However, the reliance on

commercial redevelopment can be offset if existing public car parks can

be expanded first. The investment cost in the new car parks will be

considerable and will not be covered by the redevelopment potential of

the smaller sites alone so the business case for new car parks will

generally have to be based on the long term income from parking fees.

7.2.4 While the status quo strategy is primarily based on maintaining the

existing parking provision, there are a number of improvements and

management measures which should be considered (outlined below)

and ‘windfall’ opportunities such as the temporary use of the Aldi site

should continue to be explored.

7.3 Recommendations

7.3.1 When looking to identify a preferred strategy up to 2026 it is apparent

that wholesale changes in the short term are unwarranted and likely to

be overtaken by other events during the plan period. However, it is also

apparent that Lewes currently suffers from a shortage of parking and

poor disposition of facilities around the town. It is recommended that

initially the Slight Expansion strategy is followed combining the short

term management measures with an expansion in spaces of at least

125 spaces.

7.3.2 There are a number of sites where this additional space could be

provided, but the Brook Street site has the most obvious potential for

delivery being under the control of LDC and in a less sensitive part of

the town. It also has the advantage of serving the upper town, the area

with the poorest parking supply as well as potentially forming part of the

wider redevelopment of the North Street district. It could also be

accessed , and benefit, from and future changes to the road gyratory

system.

7.3.3 Further more, there are opportunities for utilising existing PNR sites

within the town, taking advantage of under utilised spaces within those

sites.

7.3.4 If the Slight Expansion Strategies pursued, together with the reviews

and additional investigations outlined below, then changing travel

patterns arising from travel plans and demand management measures

together with any private sector developments can be monitored and

incorporated into future revisions.

7.4 7.4 Implementing the recommended Strategy

7.4.1 The survey has identified a number of areas for further investigation or

potential improvements which are summarised below:

52

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



Review duration of stay designation. Many of the smaller car

parks in the upper town permit stays of up to 10 hours. It is unclear

how many vehicles are actually parked for the full duration, but

reducing to the maximum stay to 2 or 4 hours should considerably

boost the parking turnover per space and push the longer stayers

to the more peripheral car parks on the outskirts of town;

Review permit holder parking. A number of well located car

parks are allocated to permit holders. Undoubtedly some of these

will be justified but balance between paid/permit and the

opportunity to open up these car parks for dual use should be

regularly reviewed.

Use of the PNR spaces at ‘public’ buildings. While the County

Council offices and some schools make car parks available for

evening and/or weekend use, a large number of well located car

parks are not available especially along Mountfield Road. The

opportunity for multiple uses of PNR car parks should be explored

as it is clear that there is space available not only in the evenings

and weekends but during the daytime as well.

LDC car park expansion. Three car parks (Phoenix Causeway,

Brook Street and North Street) which lie in LDC control have been

identified for possible decking. The practicality and viability of these

prospects should be ascertained through a detailed appraisal of

options, including impact on air quality in the AQMA. As indicated

in paragraph 7.3.2 above, the preferred option at this stage is the

Brook Street site.

Private car park expansion. Potential expansion of the Tesco car

park and new developments at Waitrose/NCP/Wenban Smith and

the ‘Phoenix Quarter’ have been identified. Whilst these lie outside

the direct control of LDC, the prospects should be examined in out -

line sufficient to indicate the form and magnitude of any car park

facility, again including air quality impacts. Those considered

suitable could inform LDC future aspirations for the sites and be

incorporated into future parking strategy in the LDF.

Redevelopment of smaller car parks. If any additional parking is

provided by new or expanded car parks, redevelopment of certain

existing small scale car parks might be considered.

Car Clubs. The introduction of car clubs schemes could reduce the

demand for car parking spaces. It is estimated that for every car

club car, between 5 and 20 private cars could be removed, thus

reducing demand for residents spaces. The planning and highways

authorities will need to consider the scope for widening the use of

section 106 agreements to facilitate the development and growth of

car clubs, including provision for use by local businesses as well as

residents.


Appendices

54


Appendix A. Brief for the study ________________________________________________________________ __ 55

Appendix B. Assessment Worksheets ________________________________ ____________________________ 69

Appendix C. Notes of stakeholder meeting ________________________________ _________________________ 70

Appendix D. Data from Car Park Ticket Machines ___________________________________________________ 71


Appendix A. Brief for the study

Brief for Parking Study for the Town ofLewes

June 2008

1 Introduction

1.1 Lewes District Council and East Sussex County Council require a review of off-street public parking in the town of Lewes in East Sussex. A map of existing off-street parking provision in the town is attached. There is a pressing need for such a piece of work in Lewes town because of a combination of factors relating to the pressures of being an important employment centre, having an attractive retail sector, a medieval urban core, and an extensive rural hinterland.

1.2 The purpose is to inform the Local Development Framework, the Joint Parking Management Board, (and its policies for managing on-street and off-street parking in Lewes) the Local Transport Plan, and decisions on major planning applications.

1.3 The Study will assess both qualitative and quantitative issues. Key outputs will be recommendations on:




a) The implications of a range of parking supply scenarios for the town up to 2026.

b) The best practical and environmental location for different levels of off-street parking supply and the appropriateness of individual sites remaining in parking use

c) If such is required, a realistic assessment of the options for the provision of new/replacement car parks, including possible funding options

d) If such is required, appropriate means of “demand management” to reduce pressure on available off-street parking supply.

e) The balance between long and short stay parking provision and appropriate locations for each.

1.4 Whilst the Study is focussed on off-street parking provision, it will need to consider on-

street parking to the extent that the letter affects the overall supply of parking in the town. However, the Study does not represent a review of the existing on-street parking control scheme.

1.5 The appointed consultants will particularly require planning and property skills, together with an appreciation of the role of parking in the social and economic life of towns and its effect on accessibility and local traffic networks.

2 Background to the issues in Lewes

(a) The Local Economy

2.1 Lewes is the county town of East Sussex. It is a small town, with a population of approximately 16,000. A significant proportion of the resident workforce commutes out to work, but a large volume of outsiders travel into Lewes to work each day in the wide variety of functions performed in the town. Public administration is a dominant activity, as the town accommodates County Hall, the District and Town Councils, the Sussex Police Headquarters, the Fire Brigade, the Ambulance Service, the PCT, the Crown and the Magistrates Courts, and various Government services.




2.2 Education is also an important activity, with Lewes being a focus for a wide surrounding area for Sixth Form and Further Education through its secondary school and the Sussex Downs College, and a long established private school. Likewise the Victoria Hospital, albeit small, draws in patients from Brighton and the surrounding rural area.

2.3 The town is also base for a wide range of businesses and professional services that serve the western part of the county, or that are interrelated with the public functions of the town. Such activities include law, finance, architecture, surveying, property, medicine and complementary therapies.

2.4 As an historic town set in the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (a proposed National Park) tourism is an important activity, with visitors providing a top slice of the income of local shops and food and drink outlets. The town also has an active cultural and community life, with a wide range of events happening in many venues in the town throughout the year.

2.5 Of all the towns in the District, Lewes has the strongest retail economy. Although the cattle market has gone, it retains a traditional market town function within its prosperous catchment area. Shoppers are drawn to two major national supermarkets, with a third likely to open. There are DIY and building supplies outlets. In the town centre, in addition to national name retail and financial services, the small historic buildings accommodate a wide range of specialist independent stores, cafes and restaurants, and a monthly farmers’ market takes place in the pedestrian precinct. These all attract shoppers to Lewes who are looking for a change from the usual ‘clone town’ shopping experience. However, Lewes has to work hard to maintain its market share, as there are a number of larger towns (Brighton, Eastbourne, Crawley) or smaller sized towns offering free parking (e.g. Uckfield) within a reasonable




distance to draw trade away from Lewes and its rural hinterland.

2.6 Clearly, there is a lot of coming and going associated with Lewes’ multi-faceted economy and lifestyle. However, Lewes is an important historic town whose medieval street pattern is ill suited to the volume of traffic and parking demand generated by all these different functions. Consequent traffic issues include congestion spreading out beyond rush hours, poor conditions in many places for walking and cycling, air quality problems in narrow ‘canyon streets’, and adverse impact on the appearance of historic streets. The town’s parking supply is constrained by the limited physical and environmental capacity of the narrow streets, and the restricted amount of off-street space available within the dense urban fabric of the town.

(b) Existing parking provision

2.7 Parking has been the subject of very detailed work over a number of recent years. Parking enforcement across Lewes District was decriminalised in 2004 and, at the same time, a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) was introduced across the whole of Lewes town centre following extensive consultation and technical assessment. The CPZ has subsequently been extended into some surrounding residential streets in response to local demand. Parking, both on and off-street, is managed by the County Council on behalf of the two authorities through a contract with NCP.

2.8 The control of parking is a key element of the transport strategy for the town. This Strategy is set out in the County Council’s Local Transport Plan, and developed in more detail, in “Signposts to 2010”. Since the introduction of parking controls and charging in 2004, the upward trend in traffic levels has been reversed.

2.9 On-street in the town centre, spaces are at realistic capacity, with one or two spaces




squeezed in at every opportunity where yellow lines are not strictly necessary. Therefore on-

street spaces are not components of the proposed Study. It can be assumed that the status quo represents the maximum quantity of on-street spaces that can be made available, and the possibility of future reduction to improve the street environment cannot be ruled out.

2.10 Many of the existing off-street car parks are ‘accidents of history’, for example the site of the long demolished Naval Prison in the historic core. They make no contribution to historic townscape and some are traffic generators in inappropriate streets. They are all well used, and there are inevitably conflicts over their use and management, for example between the needs of shoppers, businesses, commuters and residents. A map of existing off-street car parks is attached.

2.11 The philosophy has been to actively manage the parking stock making the most effective use of the totality of on and off-street spaces available, using the pricing mechanism to encourage particular patterns of use. Thus, commuter parking is effectively restricted close to main shopping streets, and off-street parking is made more financially attractive than on-street in the vicinity, while central on-street space is managed to facilitate short stays for shopping and businesses.

(c) Factors affecting parking demand

2.12 Lewes has good rail links to Brighton, London and the Sussex Coast. There is a frequent bus service to the east and west. These public transport links are well used and provide a good alternative to use of the private car for work trips in central Lewes. However public transport links to villages in the rural area north and east of the town are less convenient. Other than on the trunk routes between Tunbridge Wells/Uckfield/Ringmer/Lewes/Brighton, the many bus services are subsidised by the County Council, and therefore their frequency is subject




to public finance constraints. Villages that have railway stations find that some trains don’t stop there in order to speed journey times between main towns. Therefore shoppers and workers who live in these areas have fewer alternatives available to use of their cars for trips to Lewes.

2.13 The functions, activities and retail offer in Lewes clearly generate a demand for parking, which some in the town feel is not met and so consequently has adverse impact on the local economy. However, there are others who feel that for environmental reasons the demands of the private car now should be resisted and reduced. Yet others are content with the existing level of parking, but feel that the location of some of the public car parks could be improved operationally and environmentally. Accordingly, we will be looking to the Study to consider a range of parking supply scenarios.

2.14 However, the options for increasing and/or relocating off-street parking in Lewes are few because of the high quality and/or intensity of development within the town’s boundaries, and quality of the natural landscape outside its boundaries, much of which is AONB or proposed National Park. Removing a car park from one location may help to ease traffic and pollution problems in one area, but could possibly transfer them to another.

2.15 The possibility of park and ride on the periphery of Lewes has been considered in earlier studies and has been rejected for various reasons, in particular:

(a) the difficulty in finding suitable sites in view of the sensitive landscapes around the edge of the town.

(b) The compact nature of the town, with short distances between the edge of town and the centre, making the time penalty of transfer from car to bus unattractive.



61

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



(c) The very limited prospect for achieving

bus priority on radial routes.

And

(d) The difficulty of achieving a financially

viable operation.

However, it is recognised that there may be

some limited prospects for informal park and

ride, by bus or town, from surrounding

settlements such as the Lewes District Coastal

Towns. There may also be a prospect fortransfer of some journeys to public transport,

possible encouraged through the control of

private commuter parking by major employers

(e.g. local authorities and the Police) in

conjunction with travel plans.

2.16 There is a need therefore for a parking study to

consider the issues and opportunities that

impinge on land use in the town.

In order to inform the District Local

Development Framework that will shape the

planning policies for the town to 2026.

To provide the context for considering theopportunities to make changes to public

parking provision in Lewes, in the context

of possible new parking proposals in

currently emerging redevelopmentproposals.

3 Content of the Lewes Parking Study

3.1 The Study should consider a variety of futureoff-street parking levels in the town. This

should include accommodating the current

amount of off-street parking, plus at least three

levels of increase in the supply, and at least two

levels of decrease to provide a range ofscenarios up to 2026.

3.2 The existing portfolio of car parks should be

subjected to a qualitative evaluation relating to

factors such as fitness for purpose, townscapeimpact, impact on air quality problems, impact


on the traffic, cycle and pedestrian networks.

3.3 The spatial implications of each quantity level envisaged should be assessed and the preferred package of sites to comprise each level identified. This may include identifying new sites to be provided and/or existing car parking that could be redeveloped for other uses. Any potential new car park sites may need to be tested in the Lewes Traffic Model (held by ESCC) to assess their impact on the wider traffic network.

3.4 Clear and simple justifications for the spatial distribution at each level should be given, together with pointers to any complementary land use and/or transportation issues that these would give rise to.

4 Factors to be included in the assessment

Demand

4.1 The study should identify the various sectors of users of parking in Lewes, and their likely future needs in terms of quantity, locations and length of stay without demand management measures.

4.2 It should consider whether there are demand management or realistic alternative options for access that could be available to some types of user, if parking is in short supply.

Supply

4.3 The present on-street supply of parking spaces should be regarded as the maximum, and possibly likely to decline in future in response to environmental improvements.

4.4 The study should include quantitative and qualitative assessment of the existing off-street parking stock including location, suitability, townscape impact, and impact on traffic flow and air quality.




4.5 The Study should evaluate the best practical and environmental locations for the off-street supply, and the appropriateness of individual sites remaining in parking use, perhaps through some form of ranking.

4.6 It should assess options for car parks proposed in previous plans and strategies, and proposed by Angel Properties in their proposed development at North Street and Malling Brooks.

Strategy

4.7 The Study should recommend a quantitative and spatial strategy for parking in Lewes. The Study is required to assess the best practical quantitative parking supply options appropriate to the town up to 2026. It is required to suggest realistic and reasonable options for balancing competing requirements, always having regard to both protecting Lewes’ special character and environment and to safeguarding its functions and economic viability.

4.8 Having regard to the above factors, its recommendations should cover the quantity of off-street parking and its site specific locations.

4.9 If such is considered to be justified, the Study should include a realistic assessment of the options for the provision of new car parks as additions or replacement for the existing stock.

4.10 It should identify any sites recommended not to remain in parking use, with reasoned justification.

4.11 The Study should assess the balance appropriate between long and short stay parking provision and appropriate locations for each.

5 Resources to be provided by the Local Authorities

5.1 The County Highway Authority will provide the following:



64

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



Use of the Lewes traffic model to enableassessment impact of parking on traffic

flows (Information on the model is available

from Alan Cook at ESCC on 01273 482263)

Access to the very large amount ofinformation about the location and use of

parking that has been collected as a result of

the work carried out for decriminalisation of

parking and its current management.

Transport strategy officers will liaise with

the consultant over the wider traffic

implications of any proposals emergingfrom the Study.

5.2 Lewes District Council will provide the

following:

An outline of present planning policy and

the sources of information relevant to land

use and economic issues in the emerging

Local Development Framework.

Information as appropriate about its existing

public off-street car parks in the town, and

those operated by private companies.

Appropriate material such as mapping and

aerial photographs.

Information on major planning applications.

All this information will be made available to

support the work of the selected consultants,

which should reduce costs significantly.

6 Consultations

6.1 Consultants bidding for this Study should

outline how and when they would envisage

involving a cross section of local stakeholders inthe work, and the role and purpose of the

proposed stakeholder engagement.

65

250100/ITD/ITL/1/7 11 May 2010



7 Documents etc required

7.1 We are looking for a final product that isconcise and easily comprehensible and that can

be used to inform and substantiate subsequent

decisions by the appropriate authorities.

7.2 It should not reiterate information that isavailable elsewhere (cross references to be

included as necessary). Neither should it

include unnecessary descriptive matter.

7.3 The following outputs will be required:

Main report:

Two paper copies (one with no fixedbinding – to allow copying) each to LDC

and ESCC.

An electronic copy each to LDC and ESCC.In a format suitable for posting on their

websites and/or printing.

Executive Summary: 1000 word maximum.

Consultants should ensure that their format for

maps and text is compatible with LDC’s and

ESCC’s.

The documents and their copyright will be theproperty of the clients.

8 Progress reports and meetings

8.1 Consultants should allow for the followingmeetings with the clients, in addition to the

consultation with stakeholder organisations (to

be agreed with the client):

Inception meeting

Discussion of first draft

Discussion of final draft

8.2 In addition, the consultants will be required to e-

mail to the clients a brief monthly progress

report.


9 Timescale

9.1 The Study should be completed within six months of inception. A proposed work programme should be submitted with the bid.

10 Form of the consultant’s submission:

The consultants should indicate:

(a) Background information on the consultancy including details of any similar work undertaken elsewhere

(b) the consultancy staff to be involved in producing the work; their qualifications; their experience on similar projects; the amount of time proposed to be spent by each person at different stages of the work; and daily/hourly fee rates.

(c) the consultants’ proposed approach to the work set out in this Brief.

(d) Price for the work, subdivided to show the number of staff days allocated, together with any project costs or disbursements.

(e) Details of any previous clients to whom reference may be made for this type of work.

(f) Insurers/Brokers confirmation of your firm’s continuous professional indemnity (and other) insurance cover in force for this Study.

(g) Details of any environmental accreditations held by the firm.

(h) Any possible conflict of interest arising from other work being carried out by the consultants for other clients.




11 Submission of the Quotation

11.1 Quotations should be submitted in duplicate, in the plain envelope provided to the Director of Planning & Environmental Services, PO Box 166, Lewes, East Sussex, BN7 9EY to reach us by Monday, 7 July 2008 at 12 noon. No name or mark is to be placed on the envelope to indicate, in any way, the identity of the sender.

11.2 Lewes District Council will reject late, or qualified, quotations. The Council does not bind itself to accept the lowest, or any other quotation. Canvassing will disqualify.

12 Corrupt Gifts

12.1 The Council may cancel this Agreement and recover from the Contractor any loss resulting from such cancellation where:

(a) the Contractor has offered or given any gift or other consideration to any person as an inducement to take (or fail to take) any action in relation to obtaining or executing this, or any other, contract with the Council.

(b) the Contractor has shown (or failed to show) any favour or disfavour to any person in relation to this Contract.

(c) any employee of the Contractor acts in the fashion described in Article 12(a) or 12(b) above.

(d) the Contractor or any employee of the Contractor commits any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889 to 1916, or any subsequent amendments to these Acts.

(e) the Contractor or any employee of the Contractor shall have given any fee or reward which is an offence under Section 117(2) of the Local Government Act 1972.




Lindsay Frost Director of Planning & Environmental Services Lewes District Council




Appendix B. Assessment Worksheets



Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: Maltings (Castle Ditch) No. Spaces: approx - unmarked 60 Max time (paid): 10hrs Permits 12

Zone: Upper town Access route: Offham Road (from NW) Owner: LDC Management: LDC

zonal demand individual c.p. demand individual c.p. quality / development value

w'ght value total w'ght value total w'ght value total

visit purpose 30 205 visit purpose 18 118 c.p. townscape impacts 43 105

local envt quality 5 8 40 quality/range of shops 20 7 70 long distance visual impact 10 4 40

quality/range of shops 30 7 105 quality/range of facils 16 6 48 quality of surrounding buildings 20 0 0

quality/range of facils 20 6 60 surfacing / signage / lighting of c.p. 6 5 30

driving deterrence 20 40 permeability of c.p. (foot / bike) 7 5 35

driving deterrence 10 43 driving accessibility (narrow streets) 8 0 0

congestion on approaches 5 3 15 driving time / local congestion 8 5 40 traffic impacts of access route 32 109

road qual on approaches 2 5 10 accessibility into c.p. 4 0 0 length (non purpose built) from edge of town 5 2 10

accessibility to zone 3 6 18 air quality (and noise) impacts 7 7 49

parking deterrence: unalterable factors 22 75 impact on buildings along access route 10 2 20

zonal demand 20 60 difficult to find 7 0 0 impact on ped movements along route 10 3 30

demand from nearest access 16 3 48 walk access quality / distance to facilities 15 5 75

alternative zones from access 4 3 12 alternative development value 75 275

parking deterrence: changeable factors 65 448 revenue value as c.p. 20 4 80

alternative travel opportunities 15 55 cost / too short period 20 7 140 residents / PNR value as c.p. 10 2 20

cross town bus service 5 0 0 features of car park 5 4 20 alternatives car park options in zone 5 3 15

edge park and ride opportunities 5 5 25 vandalism / security 8 1 8 alternative econ value 20 8 160

park and stride' opportunities 5 6 30 anticipated to be full 20 8 160 alternative social value 10 0 0

75 363 deterrence if decked 12 10 120 alternative townscape / green value 10 0 0

125 681 150 489

Charge rates Total score with / without changeable factors 1533 1085

<30 min: 50p

<1hr: 50p

<2hr: £1

<4hr: £2

<10hr: £5

Survey date: 21 apr time: 1800 weather: good ground conds: dry

Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: South Street (north) No. Spaces: 50 Max time (paid); 2 hrs Permits:

Zone: Town Centre (east) Access route: Phoenix causeway

Owner: LDC Management: LDC



















edge park and ride opps 5 3 15 vandalism / security 8 9 72 alternative econ value 20 6 120

park and stride' length / quality 5 1 5 anticipated to be full 20 5 100 alternative social value 10 4 40


125 708 150 564


<30 min: £0.40

<1hr:£0.70

<2hr: £1.40

<4hr

<10hr

Survey date: time: weather good ground conds: dry

Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: Westgate Street No. Spaces: 60 Max time (paid): 2 hr Permits no

Zone: upper town Access route: from W - via Prison























125 722 150 775

Charge rates Notes Total score with / without changeable factors 1860 1484

<30 min £0.40

<1hr: £0.70

<2hr: £1.50

<4hr

<10hr

Survey date: 21-Apr time: 1800 weather good ground conds: dry

Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: West Street No. Spaces: 80 Max time (paid) 2 hrs Permits no

Zone: Upper town Access route: Offham road























125 782 150 728


<30 min £0.40

<1hr: £0.70

<2hr: £1.50

<4hr

<10hr

Survey date: 21-Apr time: 1630 weather good ground conds dry

Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: Market Street No. Spaces:8 each side: total 16 but 8 relevant 100 Max time (paid) n/a Permits: all

Zone: Upper town Access route: Phoenix Causeway























125 720 150 683

Charge rates: n/a (except sats) Total score with / without changeable factors 1766 1357

<30 min

<1hr

<2hr

<4hr

<10hr


Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: North Street No. Spaces:after re-opening - approx n/a Max time (paid) Permits:

Zone: Upper Town Access route: Phoenix Casueway (from E); Offham Road (from NW) Owner: LDC Management: LDC






















125 895 150 906

Charge rates:adjacent Little East st charges shown Total score with / without changeable factors 2164 1704

<30 min: £0.50

<1hr: £0.50

<2hr: £1.00

<4hr: £2.00

<10hr: £5.00

Survey date: 22-Apr time: 1030 weather good ground conds: dry - but under construction

Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: North Street No. Spaces:after re-opening - approx n/a Max time (paid) Permits:

Zone: Upper Town Access route: Phoenix Casueway (from E); Offham Road (from NW) Owner: LDC Management: LDC






















125 843 150 920

Charge rates:adjacent Little East st charges shown Total score with / without changeable factors 2126 1710

<30 min: £0.50

<1hr: £0.50

<2hr: £1.00

<4hr: £2.00

<10hr: £5.00

Survey date: 22-Apr time: 1030 weather good ground conds: dry - but under construction

Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: Little East Street No. Spaces: 100 Max time (paid): 10hrs Permits no

Zone: Upper town Access route: NW (White Hill) or East (Phoenix Causeway) Owner: LDC Management: LDC






















125 810 150 796


<30 min: £0.50

<1hr: £0.50

<2hr: £1.00

<4hr: £2.00

<10hr: £5.00

Survey date: 22 apr time:1030 weather: good ground conds: dry

Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: East Street No. Spaces: 100 Max time (paid): 10hrs Permits no

Zone: Upper town Access route: East (Phoenix Causeway)























125 824 150 879


<30 min: £0.50

<1hr: £0.50

<2hr: £1.00

<4hr: £2.00

<10hr: £5.00

Survey date: 22 apr time:1030 weather: good ground conds: dry

Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: Spring Gardens / Brook Street No. Spaces:approx (unmarked), 3-4 coach spaces 100 Max time (paid) 10hrs Permits no

Zone: Phoenix Quarter Access route: East - Phoenix Causeway; also others via one-way system























125 621 150 860


<30 min

<1hr

<2hr

<4hr

<10hr: £2


Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: Corporation Wharf No. Spaces:approx- unmarked 70 Max time (paid) 10hrs Permits: no


Owner: unknown Management: LDC






















125 626 150 555


<30 min

<1hr

<2hr

<4hr

<10hr: £2


Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: Wellington Street No. Spaces: 70 Max time (paid) n/a Permits all






local envt quality 5 0 quality/range of shops 20 0 long distance visual impact 10 0

quality/range of shops 30 0 quality/range of facils 16 0 quality of surrounding buildings 20 0

quality/range of facils 20 0 surfacing / signage / lighting of c.p. 6 0

driving deterrence 20 0 permeability of c.p. (foot / bike) 7 0

driving deterrence 10 0 driving accessibility (narrow streets) 8 0

congestion on approaches 5 0 driving time / local congestion 8 0 traffic impacts of access route 32 0

road qual on approaches 2 0 accessibility into c.p. 4 0 length (non purpose built) from edge of town 5 0

accessibility to zone 3 0 air quality (and noise) impacts 7 0

parking deterrence: unalterable factors 22 0 impact on buildings along access route 10 0

zonal demand 20 0 difficult to find 7 0 impact on ped movements along route 10 0

demand from nearest access 16 0 walk access quality / distance to facilities 15 0

alternative zones from access 4 0 alternative development value 75 0

parking deterrence: changeable factors 65 0 revenue value as c.p. 20 0

alternative travel opportunities 15 0 cost / too short period 20 0 residents / PNR value as c.p. 10 0

cross town bus service 5 0 features of car park 5 0 alternatives car park options in zone 5 0

edge park and ride opps 5 0 vandalism / security 8 0 alternative econ value 20 0

park and stride' length / quality 5 0 anticipated to be full 20 0 alternative social value 10 0

75 0 deterrence if decked 12 0 alternative townscape / green value 10 0

125 0 150 0


<30 min

<1hr

<2hr

<4hr

<10hr


Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: Phoenix causeway (east and west) No. Spaces: 97 (55 east, 42 west) 100 Max time (paid) 5hrs (east); 10 hrs (west)

Zone: town centre (east) Access route: Phoenix Causeway


zonal demand individual c.p. demand individual c.p. quality / developmen

w'ght value total w'ght value total

visit purpose 30 165 visit purpose 18 84 c.p. townscape impacts

local envt quality 5 9 45 quality/range of shops 20 6 60 long distance visual impact

quality/range of shops 30 6 90 quality/range of facils 16 3 24 quality of surrounding buildings

quality/range of facils 20 3 30 surfacing / signage / lighting of c.p.

driving deterrence 20 184 permeability of c.p. (foot / bike)


congestion on approaches 5 8 40 driving time / local congestion 8 10 80 traffic impacts of access route

road qual on approaches 2 10 20 accessibility into c.p. 4 6 24 length (non purpose built) from edge of town

accessibility to zone 3 10 30 air quality (and noise) impacts

parking deterrence: unalterable factors 22 190 impact on buildings along access route

zonal demand 20 180 difficult to find 7 10 70 impact on ped movements along route


alternative zones from access 4 5 20 alternative development value

parking deterrence: changeable factors 65 319 revenue value as c.p.

alternative travel opportunities 15 40 cost / too short period 20 4 80 residents / PNR value as c.p.

cross town bus service 5 4 20 features of car park 5 3 15 alternatives car park options in zone

edge park and ride opps 5 3 15 vandalism / security 8 8 64 alternative econ value

park and stride' length / quality 5 1 5 anticipated to be full 20 2 40 alternative social value

75 475 deterrence if decked 12 10 120 alternative townscape / green value

125 777

Charge rates

<30 min: £0.40

<1hr:£0.70

<2hr: £1.40

Total score with / without changeable factor


<4hr: £2.80

<10hr: £3.00 (5hr max in east)

o

Permits no

nt value

w'ght value total

43 242

10 5 50

20 8 160

6 3 18

7 2 14

32 230

5 8 40

7 10 70

10 7 70

10 5 50

75 345

20 8 160

10 3 30

5 3 15

20 4 80

10 4 40

10 2 20

150 817

rs 2069 1750

Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: Phoenix causeway (east and west) No. Spaces: approx 100 Max time (paid) 5hrs (east); 10 hrs (west) Permits no

Zone: town centre (east) Access route: Phoenix Causeway























125 861 150 881


<30 min: £0.40

<1hr:£0.70

<2hr: £1.40

<4hr: £2.80

<10hr: £3.00 (5hr max in east)


Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: Cliffe High Street No. Spaces: approx - being used as depot 80 Max time (paid); 2 hrs Permits: no Zone: Town Centre (east) Access route: Phoenix causeway























125 710 150 512


<30 min: £0.40

<1hr:£0.70

<2hr: £1.40

<4hr

<10hr


Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: South Street (north) No. Spaces: 50 Max time (paid); 2 hrs Permits:

Zone: Town Centre (east) Access route: Phoenix causeway























125 708 150 564


<30 min: £0.40

<1hr:£0.70

<2hr: £1.40

<4hr

<10hr


Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: South Street (south) No. Spaces: 20 Max time (paid) n/a Permits all

Zone: cliffe south Access route: Phoenix Causeway, then South Street Owner: LDC Management: LDC






















125 0 150 0


<30 min

<1hr

<2hr

<4hr

<10hr

Survey date: 21-Apr time: weather good ground conds: dry

Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: Friars Walk No. Spaces: 95 Max time (paid): 2hr Permits: no

Zone: town centre (west) Access route: Phoenix causeway























125 786 150 699


<30 min £0.40

<1hr: £0.70

<2hr: £1.50

<4hr

<10hr


Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: Friars Walk No. Spaces: 95 Max time (paid): 2hr Permits no

Zone: town centre (west) Access route: Phoenix causeway























125 818 150 753


<30 min £0.40

<1hr: £0.70

<2hr: £1.50

<4hr

<10hr


Lewes car parks assessment sheets

Name: Pinwell Lane No. Spaces: 100 Max time (paid): 10 hrs

Zone: rail station Access route: All























125 692 150 683


<30 min

<1hr

<2hr

<4hr

<10hr

Survey date: time: weather ground conds

Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: Mountfield Road No. Spaces 30 Max time (paid) 10 hrs Permits no

Zone Rail station Access route: mainly from C7 south























125 911 150 653


<30 min: 50p

<1hr: 50p

<2hr: £1

<4hr: £2

<10hr: £5


Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: Cockshut Road (Southdowns Club) No. Spaces: approx - unmarked 25 Max time (paid): 10 hrs Permits: No

Zone: Southover Access route: from south, possibly west Owner: Southdowns Club Management: LDC






















125 525 150 720


<30 min: 50p

<1hr: 50p

<2hr: £1

<4hr: £2

<10hr: £5


Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: Leisure Centre No. Spaces: 20 Max time (paid) n/a Permits: token

Zone: Mountfield Access route: all Owner: LDC Management: LDC






















125 804 150 680


<30 min: (token for leisure centre users)

<1hr

<2hr

<4hr

<10hr


Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: Rail Station No. Spaces: 100 Max time (paid) 24hrs Permits: no

Zone: rail station Access route: all (understood that the area to east will shortly be reincorporated into c.p.) Owner: Network Rail Management: Rail operator






















125 676 150 928

Charge rates Notes main rail station c.p. set on old goods sidings to north of station, in low-lying Total score with / without changeable factors 2024 1628

<30 min

<1hr

<2hr

<4hr

<10hr: £4 (flat rate)


Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: Rail Station No. Spaces: 100 Max time (paid) 24hrs Permits: no

Zone: rail station Access route: all (understood that the area to east will shortly be reincorporated into c.p.) Owner: Network Rail Management: Rail operator






















125 779 150 916


<30 min

<1hr

<2hr

<4hr

<10hr: £4 (flat rate)


Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name Tesco No. Spaces: (assumes current proposals go ahead) 80 Max time (paid) n/a Permits: n/a

Zone Malling Access route: Phoenix Causeway / Mayhew Way Owner Tesco Management: Tesco






















125 910 150 954


<30 min: all free

<1hr

<2hr

<4hr

<10hr


Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name Tesco No. Spaces: 80 Max time (paid) n/a Permits: n/a

Zone Malling Access route: Phoenix Causeway / Mayhew Way Owner Tesco Management: Tesco






















125 842 150 984


<30 min: all free

<1hr

<2hr

<4hr

<10hr


Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: Waitrose No. Spaces: 70 Max time (paid) n/a Permits no

Zone: town centre (west) Access route: Phoenix causeway Owner: unknown Management: Waitrose






















125 805 150 959


<30 min

<1hr

<2hr

<4hr

<10hr


Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name NCP No. Spaces: 15 Max time (paid) 8hrs Permits:

Zone Access route:Owner Management:






















125 806 150 636


<30 min

<1hr: £2.00

<2hr: £3.50

<4hr

<10hr


Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: County Hall No. Spaces: approx 100 Max time (paid) n/a Permits all - except Sat

Zone: County Hall Access route: West

Owner: ESCC Management: ESCC






















125 0 150 0


<30 min

<1hr

<2hr

<4hr

<10hr: £1.00 (with staff permit)


Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: County Hall (west) No. Spaces: 50 Max time (paid): 2hrs Permits all - or paid

Zone: County Hall Access route: west and south

Owner: ESCC Management: ESCC






















125 632 150 747

Charge rates Notes overflow car park to west of County Hall on what appears to be a 'bomb-site' w Total score with / without changeable factors 1729 1338

<30 min

<1hr: £0.80

<2hr: £1.60

<4hr

<10hr


Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: Waitrose No. Spaces: 70 Max time (paid) n/a Permits: no

Zone: town centre (west) Access route: Phoenix causeway Owner: unknown Management: Waitrose






















125 758 150 873


<30 min

<1hr

<2hr

<4hr

<10hr


Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: Malling Brooks No. Spaces: approx n/a Max time (paid) n/a Permits: n/a

Zone: malling Access route: Mayhew Way (or Phoenix Causeway)

Owner: Angel Property Management: ??

















alternative travel opportunities 15 60 cost / too short period 20 0 residents / PNR value as c.p. 10 3 30

cross town bus service 5 6 30 features of car park 5 0 alternatives car park options in zone 5 3 15

edge park and ride opps 5 3 15 vandalism / security 8 0 alternative econ value 20 2 40

park and stride' length / quality 5 3 15 anticipated to be full 20 0 alternative social value 10 6 60

75 503 deterrence if decked 12 0 alternative townscape / green value 10 6 60

125 444 150 842


<30 min

<1hr

<2hr

<4hr

<10hr


Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: HMRC No. Spaces: approx - if 3 storey decked n/a Max time (paid) n/a Permits n/a Zone: rail station Access route: mainly from C7 south

Owner: unknown Management: n/a






















125 335 150 765


<30 min n/a

<1hr

<2hr

<4hr

<10hr


Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: Sussex Down College No. Spaces: approx 100 Max time (paid) n/a Permits all

Zone: Mountfield Access route: all

Owner: Sussex Downs College (ESCC) Management: Sussex Downs College






















125 292 150 695


<30 min n/a

<1hr

<2hr

<4hr

<10hr


Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: Priory School No. Spaces: approx 100 Max time (paid) Permits:

Zone Access route: all

Owner: ESCC Management: Priory School






















125 329 150 706


<30 min

<1hr

<2hr

<4hr

<10hr


Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: Phoenix Quarter No. Spaces: in current proposals n/a Max time (paid) n/a Permits n/a

Zone: Phoenix Quarter Access route: mainly Phoenix Causeway Owner: Angel Property Management: Angel Property??






















125 449 150 922


<30 min

<1hr

<2hr

<4hr

<10hr


Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: Bell Lane No. Spaces: in current proposals n/a Max time (paid) n/a Permits n/a

Zone: Southover Access route: south or west Owner: ?? Management: ??






















125 163 150 770


<30 min: n/a

<1hr

<2hr

<4hr

<10hr


Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: Hope in the Valley No. Spaces: in current proposals n/a Max time (paid) n/a Permits n/a

Zone: west edge Access route: mainly A27 from west Owner: ?? Management: ??






















125 308 150 881

Charge rates Area of green space just off the Ashcombe roundabout with Total score with / without changeable factors 0 1510

<30 min

<1hr

<2hr

<4hr

<10hr


Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: Southerham Grey Pit No. Spaces: in current proposals (very approx.) n/a Max time (paid) n/a Permits n/a

Zone: south edge Access route: A27 east or west (and A26 south) Owner: LDC?? Management: ??






















125 349 150 1181

Charge rates Notes disused chalk pit immediately south of Southerham roundabout Total score with / without changeable factors 0 2018

<30 min

<1hr

<2hr

<4hr

<10hr


Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: Cooksbridge Station No. Spaces: in current proposals (very approx.) n/a Max time (paid) n/a Permits n/a

Zone: external Access route: north / north-west Owner: Covers?? Management: ??






















125 337 150 921

Charge rates Notes potential for c.p. on part of Covers Timber Yard immediately north Total score with / without changeable factors 0 1623

<30 min

<1hr

<2hr

<4hr

<10hr


Lewes car parks assessment sheets Name: West Street No. Spaces: 80 Max time (paid) 2 hrs Permits: no

Zone: Upper town Access route: all routes into town - most obvious from Offham Road























125 710 150 608


<30 min £0.40

<1hr: £0.70

<2hr: £1.50

<4hr

<10hr

Survey date: 21-Apr time: 1630 weather good ground conds dry


Appendix C. Notes of stakeholder meeting



Lewes Off-street parking study

Summary of notes from first consultation meeting 23/09/08 16:30-19:00

rd The first consultation event took place in the early evening on Tuesday 23

September 2008 at Lewes District Council’s offices.

Lewes DC provided a list of contact from which 60 contacts from various

organisations were invited. 14 actually attended, with a number sending their

apologies.

The meeting was introduced by Lindsay Frost of LDC and then Neil Brown of Mott

MacDonald gave a short presentation of the background to the study and of the issues

being considered.

A wide range of views were discussed by the group, but there appeared to be little

dissention about the general approach of the project. The general points raised are

summarised below:

• Need to be aware of the needs of the ‘top’ of the town as well as the lower

part, including parking and commercial needs

• Future of shopping was discussed, and may be disadvantaged relative to out of

town shopping

• A specific concern was raised regarding the position of disabled bays in

Phoenix car park

• Cllr Lock raised a number of issues:

o Town needs to develop within existing boundaries

o How does traffic levels rising relate to requirements of brief?

� MM response that absolute totals of parking are being

considered irrespective of externalities. This is realistic as the

success of parking schemes in Lewes has led to a small

decrease in total traffic levels in recent years. This fits with

another comment on the need to reduce traffic in town centre

• Key to resolving parking issues is the potential North Street development with

400 public spaces in addition to its own needs. There is also a flood risk

assessment issue.

• There is a wish for a greener town with ‘humanised’ streets, and taking care of

historical assets

• What is the role of the town centre? As now, or niche market retailing? Is

there a need or scope for more retail space?

• Scope for developing car parks at surrounding rail stations such as

Cooksbridge and Glynde would primarily serve longer distance commuters,

reducing demand at Lewes station.

• Discussions over whether Lewes station would be redeveloped as an

‘interchange’

During the discussion, MM put forward for consideration a tentative emerging

framework comprising:

• Consolidation of car parking into a few larger car parks close to the main

access routes into town – particularly Phoenix Causeway

• Deterrence to crossing town centre to access these car parks

• Potential for these larger car parks to be decked (up to c3 decks) – possibly

hidden behind other building uses

• Consider scope to bring in PNR car parking into the publicly available mix

where possible

• Other existing public car parks to be either reserved for specific users (e.g.

residents parking) allocated for other use (e.g. development, open space)

• If spaces are to be removed from the town, it may be preferable for these to be

on-street spaces, with space reallocated to streetscape improvements


Appendix D. Data from Car Park Ticket Machines



Based on car parking ticket/income data from: Monday 8th March 2010

Short Term Parking Medium Term Long Term Total

Short Term

Parking Medium

Term Long Term

30min 1 hr 2hr <2hrs 3hr 4hr 2-4hrs 5hr 6hr 7hr 8hr 9hr 10hr >4hrs <2hrs 2-4hrs >4hrs

Friars Walk 134 213 252 599 0 0 599 100% 0% 0% Friars Walk 141 196 238 575 0 0 575 100% 0% 0% Cliff High St 22 37 53 112 0 0 112 100% 0% 0% Cliff High St North 11 23 36 70 0 0 70 100% 0% 0% Westgate St 46 82 93 221 33 22 55 0 276 80% 20% 0% 132 West St 26 67 104 197 0 0 197 100% 0% 0% 13 West Street 75 129 186 390 0 0 390 100% 0% 0% Phoenix West 75 71 47 193 9 9 75 75 277 70% 3% 27% Phoenix East 0 0 0 0 0 No data No data No data East St 34 67 101 34 23 57 10 9 5 4 1 2 31 189 53% 30% 16% Little East St 41 73 114 29 28 57 11 3 2 4 4 3 27 198 58% 29% 14% Mountfield Rd 7 41 58 106 23 31 54 6 7 4 1 4 0 22 182 58% 30% 12% Aldi 236 4 240 0 0 240 100% 0% 0% The Maltings 37 31 68 18 18 36 6 7 4 4 5 9 35 139 49% 26% 25% Pinwell Rd 0 0 53 53 53 0% 0% 100% Brook St &Spring Gdn 300 0 0 60 60 60 0% 0% 100% Brook St &Spring Gdn 30 249 249 249 0% 0% 100% Cockshut Rd 0 0 11 11 11 0% 0% 100% 700 North St 0 0 0 0 Closed Closed Closed 7 North St 0 0 0 0 Closed Closed Closed

Total 3738 151 131 282 108 26 15 13 14 594 770 4790 78% 3% 3%

Based on car parking ticket/income data from: Tuesday 9th March 2010


Short Term

Parking Medium

Term Long Term


Friars Walk 84 71 109 264 0 0 264 100% 0% 0% Friars Walk 65 70 72 207 0 0 207 100% 0% 0% Cliff High St 13 18 11 42 0 0 42 100% 0% 0% Cliff High St North 0 4 3 7 0 0 7 100% 0% 0% Westgate St 27 49 30 106 10 10 20 0 126 84% 16% 0% 132 West St 24 42 39 105 0 0 105 100% 0% 0% 13 West Street 50 68 78 196 0 0 196 100% 0% 0% Phoenix West 23 13 36 14 0 14 40 40 90 40% 16% 44% Phoenix East 42 45 87 26 7 33 17 17 137 64% 24% 12% East St 19 20 39 11 8 19 6 7 4 6 2 5 30 88 44% 22% 34% Little East St 12 10 22 7 12 19 2 3 1 6 3 3 18 59 37% 32% 31% Mountfield Rd 10 14 21 45 9 13 22 0 4 4 1 0 0 9 76 59% 29% 12% Aldi 140 0 140 0 0 140 100% 0% 0% The Maltings 8 13 21 10 7 17 4 3 2 5 5 5 24 62 34% 27% 39% Pinwell Rd 0 0 27 27 27 0% 0% 100% Brook St &Spring Gdn 300 0 0 83 83 83 0% 0% 100% Brook St &Spring Gdn 30 0 0 56 56 56 0% 0% 100% Cockshut Rd 0 0 17 17 17 0% 0% 100% 700 North St 0 0 0 0 Closed Closed Closed 7 North St 0 0 0 0 Closed Closed Closed

Total 1632 99 57 156 69 17 11 18 10 307 432 2220 74% 4% 3%

Based on car parking ticket/income data from: Wednesday 10th March 2010


Short Term

Parking Medium

Term Long Term


Friars Walk 61 94 100 255 0 0 255 100% 0% 0% Friars Walk 74 74 90 238 0 0 238 100% 0% 0% Cliff High St 19 19 13 51 0 0 51 100% 0% 0% Cliff High St North 5 4 6 15 0 0 15 100% 0% 0% Westgate St 35 42 37 114 13 14 27 0 141 81% 19% 0% 132 West St 22 52 65 139 0 0 139 100% 0% 0% 13 West Street 50 67 74 191 0 0 191 100% 0% 0% Phoenix West 42 32 74 21 12 33 45 45 152 49% 22% 30% Phoenix East 33 30 63 17 4 21 9 9 93 68% 23% 10% East St 14 22 36 13 15 28 2 8 2 2 3 0 17 81 44% 35% 21% Little East St 18 25 43 10 14 24 4 5 2 4 3 1 19 86 50% 28% 22% Mountfield Rd 4 23 22 49 9 6 15 1 6 5 1 2 0 15 79 62% 19% 19% Aldi 123 2 125 0 0 125 100% 0% 0% The Maltings 16 13 29 7 4 11 0 4 1 8 4 5 22 62 47% 18% 35% Pinwell Rd 0 0 25 25 25 0% 0% 100% Brook St &Spring Gdn 300 0 0 80 80 80 0% 0% 100% Brook St &Spring Gdn 30 65 65 65 0% 0% 100% Cockshut Rd 0 0 19 19 19 0% 0% 100% 700 North St 0 0 0 0 Closed Closed Closed 7 North St 0 0 0 0 Closed Closed Closed

Total 1795 93 69 162 61 23 10 15 12 311 432 2389 75% 4% 3%

Based on car parking ticket/income data from: Thursday 11th March 2010


Short Term

Parking Medium

Term Long Term



Total 1580 92 72 164 73 16 6 12 6 321 434 2178 73% 4% 3%

Based on car parking ticket/income data from: Friday 12th March 2010


Short Term

Parking Medium

Term Long Term



Total 1803 105 65 170 71 15 9 11 9 309 424 2397 75% 4% 3%

Survey of Lewes Car Parks · 2017-07-19 · Survey of Lewes Car Parks Mott MacDonald, Mott...

Documents

Transcript of Survey of Lewes Car Parks · 2017-07-19 · Survey of Lewes Car Parks Mott MacDonald, Mott...