1.0 Background 1.1 The North Essex Parking Partnership advertised proposals for a resident permit scheme

in Epping on 17th May 2018. The notice allowed objections to be made by 8 June 2018. The proposal also included addition restrictions such as areas of pay and display parking and no waiting restrictions where it was considered that these were desirable.

1.2 As is often the case when introducing traffic orders, objections have been made. After

considering these objections a new proposal was advertised to allow business permits to be issued to business workers based in Epping town. Commuters to London would not be able to purchase a permit. The number of Business Permits was set to 80. School permits were advertised in the first proposal but in Amendment 23 these were limited to 20 permits and a higher charge than resident permits was set. The Notice of Intention was advertised on 30 August with objections to be received by the end of 21 September

1.3 This proposal has generated many objections, mainly from residents who object to the

proposal for business permits to be issued and who do not wish to have a permit zone due to the costs involved when purchasing permits (both annual and visitor)

2.0 Objections 2.1 When considering objections it is not simply a case of counting how many objections have

been made but to consider the strength of argument put forward in the objection. 2.2 Whenever a traffic order is proposed it will have the effect of displacing vehicles to other

areas but will also cause an inconvenience to residents. The question for residents to consider is if the inconvenience of commuter parking is outweighed by the restrictions that permit parking introduces, such as the cost of permits.

2.2 A redacted copy of the objections can be found at the end of this report but the types of

objections were the same as we would expect to receive from a large scale resident scheme proposal. These include:

- Concerns about the cost of permits to residents and their visitors - Objections to pay and display being allowed in the permit scheme area - Suggestions that there is no issue for residents at the moment and that the permit scheme

is to generate income rather than help residents - Objections from residents concerning Business Permits and School Permits being issued

North Essex Parking Partnership

Title: The ECC (Epping Forest District) (Permitted Parking and Special Parking Area) (Amendment No. 23) Order – Consideration of Objections

Author: Trevor Degville

- Businesses objecting as they suggest that there is nowhere else nearby to park, that the

number of car parking spaces is insufficient and that the introduction of restrictions will have a negative effect on businesses in Epping

3.0 Options 3.1 There are four options available at this stage:

- Introduce the proposal as advertised. After consideration of the objections it may be considered appropriate to introduce the proposal

- Make amendments and introduce. It could be decided to introduce some aspects of what was advertised but not others. For example where there have been a lot of objections from residents from one particular road/area this could be left out of the traffic order. The risk for the area that is removed is that it suffers from displaced vehicles from areas where restrictions are added.

- Stop the proposal. It will not be possible to introduce restrictions that all parties (residents/businesses/the school) are happy with. It may be decided to not make any changes.

- Make changes and re-advertise. It is not clear what benefit this would bring as it is unlikely that any proposal that NEPP advertise will receive largescale support due to the differing demands for the limited number of parking spaces that are available.

4.0 Redacted copies of the objections Albany Court 1 To: TRO Comments, North Essex Parking Partnership 13/09/2018

Re: Epping Parking Plan

To whom it may concern,

I am in favour of introducing resident parking permits in Albany Court but I strongly object to the proposal to

introduce a resident and business parking permit scheme in the street such as proposed by North Essex Parking

Partnership (working in conjunction with Epping Forest District Council).

Here are my objections:

- Albany Court should be resident permits only as there are not any sufficient spaces for business

permits and school permits .

- The resident parking permits should not apply to the side where there are houses because there

would be no spaces between crossovers to park cars and the only space to park would be across

someone’s crossover. People should not be charged for parking in front of the dropped kerb leading to

their own house. If you regulate that side of the road there would be no provision for visitors.

- I do not agree that the top half of Albany Court (number 1-17) should be treated as an extension of

the Bakers Lane and Cottis Lane car parks with 14 spaces with pay and display (Mon-Fri 7am-4pm, first

hour free of charge and tariffs applying for stays of 1 hour and over). The resident permits should be

available to all the residents of Albany Court. It would be the first time that a pay and display scheme is

introduced in a residential area in Epping and this would set an unwelcome precedent.

- Your latest communication does not mention provisions for visitors.

I thank you for your time and attention to those issues.

2 Dear Mr I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your objection to the proposed traffic regulation order on Albany Court. All objections and other correspondences will be considered at the end of the formal objection period when a decision will be made on whether to introduce the proposal as advertised, make amendments or stop the proposal. We will write back to you when the decision has been taken. Regards Trevor Degville Subject: Albany Court, Epping - parking permit scheme

Dear Mr Degville As a resident of Albany Court for XX years I was very disappointed to receive your letter with respect to the proposed parking permit scheme, having already objected to the previous proposal. I would like to register my objection to this proposal for the following reasons:

1. To my knowledge there has been no consultation with residents on the matter. It feels very much like we are being told what we need rather than being asked what we want.

2. We are getting no any additional value for the money you propose we pay. I currently park outside my house at no cost and now you are proposing I pay to do this. As such this feels very much like a local residents tax and a way to generate income without increasing the Council Tax.

3. There is no information on how the fee of £50 has been calculated and it feels completely disproportionate when you consider that I pay £140 vehicle tax to drive on any roads in the UK. Again this suggests that it is just an income generation scheme.

4. If your aim is to reduce parking problems then I don’t feel this scheme will do this. It will just move the problem somewhere else. Epping would be better served by the provision of more affordable parking solutions for local workers, commuters and visitors rather than a scheme that penalises residents.

I would be grateful if you could record my objection and the comments made.

3 Dear Mr I am writing following receipt of your e-mail below which has been forwarded to me. The permit scheme is a proposal at the moment and all objections and other comments will need to be considered at the end of the formal consultation period (21 September) to decide if the proposal should go ahead as advertised, be amended or stopped. We will write back to you when that decision has been made. Your objection to permits being sold to non-residents will be one of the objections that is considered when the consultation period has concluded. Regards

Trevor Degville Parking 4 Subject: Albany court Epping

Hi, I am a resident I live at number. I don’t agree that anyone other than residents should have permits. When will the permit be available for us to purchase? Subject: Epping Parking Plan

5 Hello, I am writing to object to the proposed parking plan for Albany Court, Epping. - There is currently no parking problem in Albany Court which needs to be addressed - The proposal places an intolerable burden on residents in Albany Court, by charging them for visitors and/or deliveries - The proposal offers no increase in parking capability as no extra parking spaces are created. As a result, it is clear that the proposal is an exercise in revenue generation rather than parking improvement. Please reconsider. Best regards,

6 I am writing about your document:

The Essex County Council (Epping Forest District) (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking

Area) (Amendment No.23) Order 201x

In addition to being a resident of Albany Court I am also a XX, so my response is likely to bear some

resemblance to theirs.

Net width of roads between lines of parked cars

If all the parking indicated will be on the roads and not on pavements, will the net width of each road be

wide enough to permit the passage of fire engines and refuse collection vehicles?

In the case of Albany Court, vehicle park of the north-east side, where cars are parked on the south-west

side, they tend to park partly on the pavement. However, if the south-west side is designated a parking

area as under section 4 and they park entirely on the road, what width would be left?

In the case, for example of Coronation Hill, where there may be room for buses, fire engines, and refuse

collection vehicles to pass but there may not be enough room for vehicles to pass in each direction at the

same time, would there be enough ‘passing places’ to enable drivers to see that the road to the next

‘passing place’ is clear?

In discussion at the Town Council, a view was expressed that the scheme may permit parking partly of

the pavement. Is this true and how would it be indicated? I had envisaged that parking areas would be

marked by painting on the road.? Is this true? If your plans require parking partly on pavements I think

that residents and the Town Council should have been informed.

‘Pay and Display’ Parking

The proposed ‘pay and display parking’ using the existing areas in Bakers Lane and the proposed areas in

Albany Court and Regent Road would be dominated by commuters and would reduce the short-term

parking provided in Bakers Lane for High Street shoppers.

Albany Court

With reference to your proposal for Albany Court: “To introduce resident and business permit holders only mon-fri 10am-2.30pm (Zone EF3) on the

following lengths of road in the District of Epping Forest (add to a new schedule 52i of the 2016 order) “Both sides north west for its entire length from the north west facing boundary wall of number 17

Albany Court” I don't know how familiar you or your team are with Albany Court but, whereas one side of Albany Court

has no houses and your scheme could be introduced, the other side has houses with driveways so wide

that there would be no space between driveways to permit parking so the application would not generate

any extra parking.

In particular, in front of number 38 Albany Court there is a small turning arc which should not be used

for parking without the consent of the householder.

I would recommend that the parking specified for Albany Court should be restricted to the north-east side

from the double-yellow lines at the junction with Bakers Lane to a point opposite the north-west wall of

number 37.

Yours sincerely, 7 Dear Sir / Madam I write this is the, probably forlorn, hope that my views will carry some weight. So far, it seems that local opinion has counted for nothing, and that the ludicrous plan to proceed with the changed parking arrangements for the Albany Court area is proceeding apace. As a resident of the “top” of Albany Court, it is clear we are being victimised for living at the top of the street. Why should we not have residents’ parking opposite our house, as is planned for the rest of the street? Your plan is clearly designed to squeeze parking for the High Street into an area directly across from our house. This is grossly unfair. It is already virtually impossible to have visitors and workmen visit, as there is never anywhere to park. Your plan will make this materially worse. I object in the strongest terms to your plan. Have some consideration for the residents - it’s not our fault that we live close to the Town Centre! That should be a benefit, not a curse. Subject: EF32018 Rejection

8 Hi sir/Madam, I received an letter about the proposed parking restrictions on Albany court, with the reference number in the subject title. I live in XX, Albany court and would like to reject the proposal of parking restrictions. It has always been a free parking zone and I wouldn’t like it to change. Thanks

9 Hi

Re: proposed parking restrictions in Albany Court, Epping Ref EF3 2018 As an Albany Court resident I have the following concerns regarding the proposed parking restrictions in Albany Court as per your letter dated 30th August 2018. Pay and Display The proposed pay and display area has a fee of £3.80 for over 2 hours up to 4pm. This would imply that a commuter wishing to travel in to London could park all day in Albany Court for £3.80. This is close to 50% of the cost of parking at the underground station and hence would be an attractive cost saving option for them. A mechanism needs to be 'introduced' in to the policy that would make parking in Albany Court less attractive for commuters otherwise I can see us being in effectively the same problem situation we are today. Permit Areas A significant number of cars currently parking in Albany Court below to business workers based in Epping. The proposal states allowing 80 business permits to use the restricted areas. With Albany Court being the only area with parking the is not directly in front of residential properties (Albany Court only has properties on one side of the road and has an area with designated bays) this makes Albany Court the most attractive parking area for non-residents (less likely to cause obstruction, easier parking access, less chance of accidental car damage). Would it not be better to provide business permits for the designated car parks in Epping as this would surely ease the residential road parking issues and focus the problem solving on to the designated parking areas ? Regards

10 Dear Mr Walker, I am writing about your document: The Essex County Council (Epping Forest District) (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (Amendment No.23) Order 201x I have a number of problems with it but I'll start with a simple one: Albany Court:

4. To introduce resident and business permit holders only mon-fri 10am-2.30pm (Zone EF3) on the following lengths of road in the District of Epping Forest (add to a new schedule 52i of the 2016 order)

Both sides north west for its entire length from the north west facing boundary wall of number 17 Albany Court I don't know how familiar you or your team are with Albany Court but, whereas one side of Albany Court has no houses and you scheme could be introduced, the other side has houses with driveways so wide that there would be no space between driveways to permit parking so the application would not generate any extra parking. I am writing as I am unhappy with the proposed parking scheme. I don’t understand why I am being charged for someone to park across my drive. I am a one car family so very rarely need to use the parking spaces opposite but when family come to visit or look after my daughter , or friends or workmen then if there are no spaces then the option to park across the drive is there. Why should I have to pay for that? The parking scheme is not generating more spaces it isn’t protecting or freeing up space for the residents of a particular road it is simply a money making scheme. The station car park is full by 7 am & so people need to park in the surrounding areas in order to walk to the tube. This whole proposal is simply making life more difficult & costly for everybody. With less people

able to park & go to the shops tube etc the high street will suffer further!

Beaconfield Road 11

12 I live at XX beaconfield road and I like many others object to the proposed parking restrictions, I have lived in this quiet culdesac for XX years with no parking problems I should not have to now pay for the right to park outside my own home I have had this right for XX years so how can my rights be taken away now, I pay my insurance, mot and ROAD tax.

13 Dear Council I would like to submit my objection to the proposed parking permit scheme in Beaconfield road Epping Essex. I object to the cost of permits that my household may incur as I have young adults who I am hoping will go on and take their car tests at some point in the future so that they will then be able to help me as I am disabled and may at some point be no longer able to drive myself. I understand that with my blue badge on display I wouldn't need a permit for my own car but if my children then obtain a car each and I can no longer drive I will be dependant on them and as I am on disability benefits the extra cost of two permits in the future along with car tax and insurance will really add up. My son is also disabled but does not qualify for a blue badge so he would have to park as near to our house if possible to help me as my mobility is getting worse. Because of my disability I will also possibly be needing carers to come to my house in the future and I understand there will also be a charge for parking permits for them too, also any visitors that come to my house would also need a visitors parking permit and I object to that as it will prevent me being able to have visitors at home if I become housebound and don't have the funds to buy said carers and visitors permits. Please reconsider the proposals for this parking scheme,I feel it needs more thought. 14 I am writing in to give some reasons for not having a parking permit From no 10 to no 20 are bungalows with oap living in them we already have a yellow thline opposite the bungalows if a yellow line was put out side the bungalows we would have to park in middle of the rd which there would be no space ambulance fire brigade dustbinmen would not not have access we have a small parking area for 5 cars could they be approved for the tenants that live there tenants are so worried they are oap that does not no how to email a few does but not all yours sincerely

This message is from XX of XX beaconfield road Epping, CM165AT I would like to confirm I object to any parking permits of the above address. Sent from my iPhone

I would like to object to the proposed parking permit scheme. Resident of XX Beaconsfield Road

15 Dear sirs Resident - XX Beaconfield Road Epping Essex Question - Does the allocation of 80 business permit allow them to park in our road ??? I would like to point out that if you go ahead with the permit parking it shows on your map that you will be allocating permit parking both sides of the road from no 30 Beaconfield Road to no 32 Beaconfield Road. This will cause a problem as the road width will only allow access when cars are parked on only one side, and even then they have to park with one wheel on the footway. The problem we have is our drive runs down beside no XX Beaconfield Road and if people park on the opposite side of the road we can not pull out on to the road. By permitting parking on both sides of the road and also in front of my drive you will be guilty of permitting wilfull obstruction of the highway. So we feel you can not allocate parking there. Another area we think is dangerous is the junction which leaves Beaconfield road into Shaftesbury Road, all motorist find it difficult to see down Shaftesbury Road even when cars are not parked there as you have to lean forward and try and look back on yourself and also whatch to see if a car is coming of Lindsey Street around a corner. So if you allocate parking there drivers will not be able to see at all. People do park there sometime now which is dangerous. We feel this should have double yellow lines. I finish by say I have no objection to permit parking IF THE BUSINESS PERMIT DO NOT EFFECT our road as it is difficult now parking but will be even more so when they builld on the car parks in town. Yours faithfully 16 FAO: TRO Comments With reference to your letter dated 30th August 2018, reference EF3 2018. My wife and I, are residing at XX Beaconfield Road, Epping. We are opposed to your proposal for a parking scheme in this area for the reasons stated below: 1. The council tax in Epping is already high and we feel that your permit fees are unacceptable. If there was to ever be a parking scheme then local residents should not have to buy permits. 2. As car owners we are already paying road tax and do not receive any reimbursements for damage caused to our vehicles through poor management of road surfaces in and around Epping. Therefore a scheme that requires local residents to pay towards an unnecessary scheme is neither fair or justifiable. 3. Your fees do not take into account the hardships that many local families already face is trying to create a decent quality of life for themselves in this area, especially the young families raising

children. This scheme has clearly been designed without the the input of local residents and is quite negligent. 4. We XX visitors at various times on a daily basis to help us with child care so we can go to work. The additional costs that we would incur are in excess of £30 per month for visitor permits, which is completely unacceptable as it would be in addition to our local council tax. My estimate is an annual cost of £490 per year! Should you decide to plan or propose a parking scheme for local Epping residents that is genuinely beneficial to the quality of our lives then we are open to hearing about it. Your current proposal adds no value to us and instead will cost us hundreds of pounds each year so the benefits of this current parking scheme are clearly only for the beneficiaries of the parking fees that are collected. I believe it is the job of Essex County Council and Epping Borough Council to serve their local residents as per our needs. 17 Tell us any further details: I live at XX Beaconfield Rd and I am concerned over proposed number of parking permits being allocated per household. We are a family of XX with 3 cars between us and are worried how it will work with only 2 permits? Our neighbor at number XX is in the same predicament and we are all anxious about what will happen next. We are not against permits being introduced but please can you reconsider how many you will allow per household taking into account adult children live at home far longer these days as its hard to get on the property ladder. We live in a cul-de-sac and do not have the option of off road parking. I would suggest that anyone living at the address at are registered on the electoral roll should be entitled to a permit 18 I live at no XX Beaconsfield rd Epping from no XX we live in bungalows some of us has objected but there are others that don’t no or own a computer so I fill it’s unfair that they can’t object when they have no ways or means to object as there is no contact no for them to phone the department we are off the rd there is already a yellow line opposite the bungalows and very hard to park if you put another line there it will make it a one way street and very unfair on the pensioner that live here they can’t afford to pay this they struggle as it is every one here is happy with the parking situation as it is as nebours respect each other with the Parking I strongly feel you should visit the bungalows and ask the people how they feel about parking as they do not have computer or contact no 19 Dear sir I telephoned your department on the 3rd of sep regarding the parking permits... iam writing to object to the proposals of permit parking at Beaconfield Road... I live at XX Beaconfield Road Epping Essex CM16 5AR ... There are XX adults living at our address and three of us have cars!!! So wot you are saying that it’s ok to have two cars but no more ... so wot happens to our other cars and if my other son gets a car we will have four cars we all need cars to go to work and too members of my family do shift work so some nite all nite and some days all day but different times !!! So unless you please realise more permits so family’s that have already had there cars before you have even thought about permit holders... and parking in our homes so iam asking you to at least if you put this in force ... then please allow my family to have more then two because it’s ridiculous most family’s have more .... I shouldn’t be made to feel worried about parking my car where I live and pay my taxes for !!! Look forward to hearing from you on this matter ASAP Yours sincerely

20 Further to your letter dated 30/08/2018 as a resident of XX Beaconfield Road, Epping I would like to object to the proposed permit plans. From house no. 1 through to 27 (where you would cross) of Beaconfield Road there are 2 properties that don’t have driveways. 1 of these is where I live. I was Xx after spending XX with the X children I had and on benefits. Not receiving anyXX along with paying off debt that he created. I still don’t have carpet in my bedroom and an off cut in my girls bedroom. Life has moved on, XX. He’s just XXcompany van. This also means that if he leaves home at 4am to drive to the other end of england he might get home early - just in time to catch the last 30 mins of the restriction; so will still need a permit for those days. Along with any annual leave he takes. I’m lucky as it’s not financially beneficial after paying for childcare for me to work yet so I get to stay at home with my youngest until next year and my husband supports all 7 of us. Life can be financially hard and I’m constantly juggling to make ends meet but the future looks promising. My eldest has passed his driving test and is saving for his 1st car and insurance. I’m even about to start lessons again and get myself on the road. Now we are required spend money on a parking permit...to park outside our own home??? Why? We live here. £130 a year. Plus whatever it would be for a 3rd permit if that is even allowed? All residents should be given the 1st permit free. 2nd £40/50 per annum. The resident parking isn’t a problem..as most have a drive. It’s the workers (mainly from the council) who use Beaconfield road as their car park that should be paying. Also every time our parents/ siblings visit we will have to pay to see our families or if we are having work done to our home. It’s not fair and unjustified- residents should not be penalised for parking down their own street! I believe my neighbours agree from the few that I have spoken to along with the numerous comments I’ve seen on social media - no one seems to agree with residents having to pay.

21 Good morning, With this email I wanted to formally Object to the proposed parking permit scheme to be implemented in the area around Beaconfield Road as a resident of number XX. Not sure if there's a formal way to do so, please advice. Kind regards. 22 Hello Mr Trevor Degville I have received the proposed parking permits for my address on Beaconfield Road Epping and would like to object to it. On my side of the Road there is no off street parking but there is on the opposite side. I also have 3 cars to my household having two children that drive and the permits are for two cars. Our street does not get that busy for parking even with commuters the council put in bollards but they have since been removed.

Beaconfield Way

23 Dear Mr The scheme has been prioritised by the North Essex Parking Partnerships Joint Committee which is made up of councillors from the partner authorities. The Epping Forest District Council representative on the Joint Committee is Councillor Sam Kane but the advertised traffic order is drafted by council officers. Prior to the final decision on whether to make the traffic order or not being taken (either at a Joint Committee meeting or through delegated authority) the views of all the relevant district ward councillors will be obtained.

Regards Trevor Degville

Dear Mr Degville

Thank you again for your speedy out of hours response. Please could you clarify the person or persons from

the district council that have proposed this, and therefore are making the decision?

Regards

On 6 Sep 2018, at 10:34 pm, Trevor Degville <Trevor.Degville@colchester.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear Mr

The North Essex Parking Partnership is a partnership of local authorities (Braintree, Colchester, Epping

Forest, Essex County, Harlow, Uttlesford and Tendring Councils). When introducing any traffic

regulation order such a permit parking, waiting restrictions, school entrance markings, etc, it will be

proposed by the local authority whether it is the County Council or in this case by the district/borough

councils through delegated authority. The same authorities who make the proposal will consider the

objections and decide whether to go ahead and make the traffic order or not. Objections are considered

and not every proposed traffic order is introduced. If the partnership makes a surplus this money goes

back into operation of the partnerships activities such as the remarking of lines, replacement of signs and

advertising any future traffic orders that may be considered desirable.

Regards

Trevor Degville

Parking Technical Manager

North Essex Parking Partnership

01206 282640

parkingpartnership.org/north

Twitter  |  LinkedIn  |  YouTube

Colchester is the lead authority for the multi award-winning North Essex Parking Partnership

Dear Mr Degville

Just so that I understand what you have said, the organisation that will introduce, manage and therefore

profit from the scheme has the final say on its implementations?

Regards

On 6 Sep 2018, at 10:53 am, TechTeam <techteam@colchester.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear Mr Ultimately, the decision whether to introduce the proposal or not is through the delegated powers given to the North Essex Parking Partnerships Joint Committee by Essex County Council, which remains the Highway Authority. The opinions of local district and county councillors regarding the objections that have been received will also be taken into account.

To clarify around business permits – there will be no limit on the number of permits sold to an individual business but there will be a limit on the total number of business permits that are sold. I am sorry if that was not clear in my original letter. We will ensure that your additional comments are added to your objection. Regards

Trevor Degville

Sent: 06 September 2018 10:20 To: TechTeam <techteam@colchester.gov.uk> Subject: Re: TRO Comments (Objection to Beaconfield Way, Epping Parking proposals)

Dear Mr Degville

Thank you for getting back to me so quickly.

Firstly, having lived in the road for over 5 years now I can categorically say that we do not have a

problem with London commenters in any of the Beaconfield named roads or surrounding roads. The

roads are to far from the station for this issue and the large majority of the additional parking comes from

council workers and other individuals working in the high street (as mentioned in my previous email).

Therefore this scheme will not solve any issues and will just be of additional cost to residents. If this

ineffective scheme was to be introduced I still do not believe that it should be at the cost of residents. If

the scheme cannot break even through the purchasing of business permits then it should not be

introduced.

Also on this business permit subject, your letter that was sent out clearly states that there will be no limits

on permits for businesses. It only ensures a staggered roll out of the business permits over an initial

period.

Please can you inform me of who will be make the decision around the implementation of rejection of

this scheme?

Regards

On 6 Sep 2018, at 9:53 am, TechTeam <techteam@colchester.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear Mr I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your objection to the proposed traffic regulation order on Beaconfield Way. All objections will be considered at the end of the formal consultation period when a decision will be made on whether to introduce the proposals as advertised, make amendments or stop the proposal. We will write back to you when this decision has been taken. The aim of the permit scheme proposal is to prevent all day parking by commuters to London. We have previously advertised a permit scheme which would also prevent non-residents who are working Epping from parking. That proposal generated many objections and it was considered that allowing some parking for people who work in Epping would be

beneficial. We have set a limit on the number of permits that can be issued to non-residents which we feel can be accommodated within the potential permit schemes catchment area. We do make a charge for permits due to the costs involved in advertising and installing a traffic order and the on-going costs of maintaining and operating a permit scheme. An hour restriction has been historically used to prevent commuter parking but with changing working patterns it is not considered to be as successful as it previously was as can be seen in other roads in Epping where there is a one hour restriction in place which still have commuter parking issues. As indicated above, we will consider all of the objections that are received before making a decision about whether to introduce the proposal or not and will then write back to you. Regards

Trevor Degville

24 Subject: TRO Comments (Objection to Beaconfield Way, Epping Parking proposals)

Hi As a current resident of Beaconfield Way Epping, I would like to formally object to the proposed resident and business parking permit scheme that is to be introduced. The only problem that we have with parking in our road and surrounding roads comes from individuals that work at the council offices and other places in the main high street. These additional (non residential) cars make the roads more congested to drive down and park on during the week. This new scheme does not look to address this issue but simply make money from it. By introducing this scheme and allowing business permits “unlimited in number per business” after an initial period, you are not reducing the number of non residential cars parked on the roads but simply profiting from it. In turn you are financial penalising current residents by charging them a fee to park in their own roads outside of their own houses. There are many young families in the area that have working parents that rely on child support from family members. Introducing this scheme will now penalise working parents or family members that drive to the area and offer support. I think this scheme needs to be abandoned or rethought through as in its current state it is not removing them problem but penalising residents and marketing profit from the issue at hand. Even if the hours of the scheme were to be reduced to an hour like in other areas of Essex and Epping, it would be better then the current scheme that is proposed. Please could someone respond to this email and allow me to be part of any further discussions or forums on this scheme. Kind regards

25 Hi We would like to Object / Decline your parking scheme for Epping. Firstly we are a family with XX young children. Both myself and my wife work full time and rely on Grandparents and other family members to take and collect them from school. This entails different vehicles parked at different times and at the cost of visitors permits is just a ridiculous money making scheme.

Secondly the council already has plans to build on the car parks in Epping so anybody visiting Epping High Street will now have nowhere else to park and will stop people coming. With your parking scheme this surely will kill the High Street. Thirdly we already pay an extortionate amount of road tax to drive and park on a public street. Why should we pay twice. If this is not a money-making scheme and you are trying to stop people parking all day and going to the station and travelling to London you could make the parking limited between 11am - 12pm or 10am - 11am. We will not be purchasing your permits to park outside our house on a public road. 26 Hello, I am a resident of X Beaconfield Way, Epping. I am writing to object to the proposed parking permit scheme. I am a mother of two young children, my partner and I both have a car each and have lots of family and friends visiting us. This proposed scheme will cost me a fortune to park my car outside my own house. I am struggling to understand this proposal, as nearer the station the only restriction is a yellow line where you are permitted from parking between 10-11am. This stops commuters parking there all day and would be much more suitable for all the commuters who use our road for parking

Beaconfield Avenue

27 Dear Sirs I am the property owner at XX Beaconfield Avenue in Epping. I would like to voice my objection to proposed parking permits for Beaconfield Avenue. I do not agree with proposal which is harming residents who do not have own parking spaces. Secondly, I do not see evidence of this road being packed with no residents cars

28 I live at XX Beaconfield Avenue, Epping, CM16 5AX and I object to the proposed parking permit scheme as I do not agree with being asked to pay to park outside my own home. It causes extra stress for elderly people who have carers, added costs when tradesmen are working on people's properties and having to pay for visitors to park.

29 Thank you for replying. But costs are nothing .like most of the residents we don't want permit zone

....and in fairness really shouldn't have to pay for 1 car ....I am on low incomes an to be told I now will have

to pay another 60-80 pound is a joke .

I understand staff have to monitor area but have never seen anyone in area where permits are in force .

One car should be free ..

Dear Ms XX

There is a charge for permits due to the costs involved in setting up and maintaining a traffic regulation order. The prices have to take into account the cost of setting up and maintaining permit schemes such as the introductory costs (advertising, lines, signs) and on-going costs (officers to patrol and associated costs such as uniforms, hand held devices, rent of accommodation, administrative function costs such as IT systems, staff to administer the permit system and maintenance of lines and signs).

Regards

Parking Subject: Parking permit scheme in beaconfield avenue epping

Why should we have to pay our car permit should be free ....

From a resident in beaconfield avenue epping

Clover Leas 30

The above letter was received from 3 residential properties 34

35

Crows Road/Regent Road

36 Dear Mrs X, I am writing to acknowledge your e-mail. The additional points that you have made will be considered with the other objections that have been received. We will write back to you when a decision on the outcome of the proposal has been made. Regards Trevor Degville 37 Subject: Re: EF3 2018 - Crows Road, Epping CM16 - Residents and Business Parking Permit Scheme - Objection

Dear Mr Degville, Thank you for your acknowledgement of my email and your reply to some of my points. Following liasing with my neighbours of proposed EF3 area I will respond as follows: 1. It remains unacceptable that a scheme that is advertised as having residents' best interests at heart would suddenly introduce an initial 80 business permits. How have these objections to not having business permits been lodged, if it is drivers who have seen the signs on the lamp posts and then objected to not being able to park, how can their needs take precedence over the residents? They do not pay Council Tax on a property in these roads, are not residents and can park elsewhere or use public transport. All that will happen is that commuters into London won't be parking but 80 (initially as stated) spaces will be taken up by local workers (plus 20 school permits). If, as stated, they are parking here anyway then currently they have no problem, if this proposal goes ahead then their problem is the limited business parking permit spaces around the town, which is exactly why we cannot allow that EF3 take all this business parking. Some neighbours were also very confused about the term 'Business Permits'. They had wondered if these were for local tradespeople etc who may be working on their houses, as this had been a consideration for them, not for local businesses to buy so that their employees could park on the road whenever they wished, taking up residents' parking places. As stated, if a permit is purchased, there is no guarantee of a parking space - well with 100 spaces initially given to non-residents it is more than likely to be guaranteed that residents of EF3 area will not find a parking space. When you read point 2 you will also realise that there is only parking for approximately 15 cars at the top half of Crows Road, probably much the same for Tower Road, not the same as other roads where parking is both sided as otherwise no-one could pass on the road. (This is only the case at the bottom of the road once there is pavement both sides and a reduction of trees.) Looking only on a map, it could be assumed that parking can be double sided all the way down, including the bend as the hazard wouldn't be noted, this must have been the case to even consider the 80 business permits and 20 school permits plus not address the safety issue. 2. That permit parking can be self-regulating is not an answer and our residents cannot accept that it will be reviewed later as all the residents of all the roads have commented about this danger. As stated previously, this is how it has now become obvious to all my neighbours who are in the EF3 catchment that no-one has actually visited this area during Monday-Friday 10-2.30pm as they would plainly see that at the top of Crows Road the parking is kept to one side only (right hand side as you come from High Street) as it is tree-lined until the bend which, having no tree area, is now having parking both sides during the week day (making it a blind bend), obstructing both pavements so pedestrians with mobility problems and/or prams actually have to walk in the road to pass. As there are two schools that students walk from here aged from 4-16 that make this a Health & Safety Issue. This makes the road extremely narrow too so that emergency vehicles would struggle and larger lorries often, on realising that they cannot pass,

have to reverse into Regent/Oak Road to go back up Crows Road. Incidentally as you go down Tower Road (the top has parking bays) vehicles park on the left hand side. 3. Of course, people will all have a different view on how long any parking regulation should be, however, thus far, I have not spoken to one resident who is happy with a 10-2.30pm permit scheme, the majority of residents think that a one or two hour restriction, if any, would suffice. They are concerned with not only the parking situation but also our High Street and Market. To quote flexible working times as a reason to choose 4.5 hours is hardly a 'pro' argument for this length of time, if this is the concern then leave the status quo. This proposal is not to help residents to park but to maximise revenue by selling the parking facilities within our roads. A number of my neighbours in EF3 area have also stated that they did not receive the communication from Parking regarding this proposal, which is a concern and that they only knew about it once highlighted this week. Another issue raised was that they had paid the Council to drop their kerbs and that they would not even be able to park on their dropped kerb - where this scheme has been brought about specifically at the bottom of Centre Drive, Western Avenue etc, I notice that there are no boxes, no lines on any side of the road only a sign. In London boroughs where this system has been brought in the local Council has painted boxes along the roads for permit holders to use, these would not cover a dropped kerb, therefore it would not be restricted as only the owner of the house could legally block it. If parking was on one side (which as mentioned would be the case in a number of roads in EF3) then the other side would have a single yellow line with the restriction to avoid double parking. Obviously this has not been proposed, presumably to save cost of implementation and to leave the kerbs (that residents have paid for) within the restriction however there is concern that this will led to the grass verges and tree lines areas being devastated by excessive parking and damage both the structure and the character of the roads. I am aware that there have been a number of points/objections raised as I have been given copies of many of them (so many that I have a folder now!) and that our Councillors and MP have also been made aware of the strong feelings that this proposal has raised and so myself and all my neighbours await further news. With regards, On Tuesday, 18 September 2018, 18:58, Trevor Degville <Trevor.Degville@colchester.gov.uk> wrote:

38 Dear Mrs X, I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your objection to the proposed traffic regulation order. All objections and other comments will be considered at the end of the formal objection period when a decision will be made on whether to introduce the proposal as advertised, make amendments or stop the proposal. We will write back to you when this decision has been taken. In the meantime I have replied to some of your points below. 1 – The original proposal did not include business permits (although school permits were advertised). With the amount of objections that this caused it was extremely unlikely that a resident permit scheme could be introduced without some concessions to the workers in the area, as opposed to commuters who are parking and going into London I cannot comment on whether or not the school should have had more parking when it was planned but we are now in a situation where we need to be able to cater for the parking needs of the school. We are not proposing to introduce business permits to encourage businesses to park in the EF3 catchment area but because that is where they are already parking. We are proposing to introduce business permits to be able to control the numbers that are parking there to try to improve the situation for residents and allow some parking for those working in Epping. 2 – Experience has shown that permit parking can be self-regulating and can prevent some of the problems that you have explained but, if these persist, this can be reviewed at a later time.

3 – People will have different views of how long any permit scheme should be operational. The times of the proposal have been chosen to try to stop all day commuter parking whilst allowing pick up and drops at school opening and closing times. There are areas of Epping where there are restrictions in place for fewer hours but these are becoming less successful with changes to working patterns, such as flexible working times. As indicated above we will ensure that your objection is considered and will write back to you when the outcome of the proposal is known. Regards Trevor Degville Subject: EF3 2018 - Crows Road, Epping CM16 - Residents and Business Parking Permit Scheme - Objection Dear Mr Degville, I am writing to object to the above proposed scheme. The changes that have been made following the recent objections have only made things worse for the local residents (people who actually live in these roads and pay Council Tax)) as the Council prepare to sell the roads now for business parking; I will be forwarding these objections on to my local Councillors and MP to investigate the changes that have been made to the original proposal. My reasons are as follows:- 1. Business permits and school permits Nowhere on the recent proposal was there any mention of business parking permits being allowed on Crows or the other adjacent roads. Only resident parking permits were indicated. Not only are there plans for business parking permits but apparently there will be 80 available initially. The fact that initially is stated obviously means that this number will go up. Living at the top end of Crows Road and the fact that you can only park on one side, there is not the capacity to allow for this number of business parking permits, this is without the 20 allocated for the school use. The school is brand new and there should have been adequate parking allocated in the first instance within planning as for any new development. It is absolutely disgraceful that our roads are being sold off to raise £34,240 per annum from just business parking permits alone. All the local businesses will park on our few roads simply because, walking around Epping the roads on the other side of the High Street and going down to Ivy Chimneys are resident parking permits only. This means that our roads will now be taken up for the whole of every day with business cars, meaning that neither residents nor visitors to our High Street or Market will be able to park at all. 2. Dangerous Bend - Crows Road between Regents Road and Upper Swaines It has been mentioned by many residents that the danger to both drivers and pedestians is extreme due to the double parking on both sides of the road to this section. Whether you are going down or coming up the road you cannot see oncoming vehicles at all and it is a serious concern. Despite this being flagged up to yourselves you have decided to leave the area as parking permits - this should be no parking at all, however as business permit parking users may wish to use this section, safety is obviously not the main concern merely revenue. This also brings to light that no-one has competently viewed this area in the daytime Monday to Friday otherwise this would have been noted already. 3. 10-2.30pm Monday to Friday Lastly, this time frame is too long. As we are on top of the High Street, which is what is obviously making it more attractive to Business Parking Permits and therefore more lucrative to the Council, this should be shorter. Our High Street is struggling, this should be a priority. To ensure that shoppers who will only stay for a short time are able to park, as parking is becoming harder and harder this time should be for a shorter period. This would also be in line with other areas in Epping such as Hartland Road, The Drummonds, Theydon Grove etc who all only have a 1 or 2 hour no parking limit. I believe this time frame is only stated with the view to raise money for the Council, otherwise it would be shorter to allow for movement for shoppers and visitors to our Town. Yours sincerely,

Subject: Crows Road Epping parking proposal

39- I would like to register a strong objection to one of the points in the revised plan for Crows Road Zone EF3, regarding the number and location of business permits. When the initial plan was issued I was in favour, as the residents at the bottom end of the road mostly do not have driveways and therefore parking in the street is made more difficult by commuters etc. However, I now see that you plan to issue 80 Business permits, which will again take spaces that residents require. This is a large amount, I can’t see how this can be accommodated, particularly as parking is restricted to one side of the road as it is narrow. It would be totally unacceptable if residents actually had more difficulty parking than at present. Please could this be reviewed and ideally removed, or restricted to the top end of the road (High Street end) where all houses have driveways. 40 Dear Mr Degville, Your reference EF3 2018 I draw a number of matters to your attention in relation to the North Essex Parking Partnership Intention General Safety 1) The proposals make no reference to the dangerous bend between Oak Road and Lower Swaines Road: there should be no parking here at all. 2) There are no planned traffic calming measures to prevent speeding vehicles. It is hazardous backing out of driveways or crossing the road for example when the road is full with parked vehicles. The speed limit should be 20 mph, ideally less. Parking Capacity After providing for 80 Business 20 School Permits and Pay and Display bays what are the number of remaining spaces for residents? If each resident subscribed for a parking permit, and; ignoring the purchase of visitor permits, blue badge holders and provision for carers what would be the level of over subscription? In this respect it appears that what is being offered for sale is a service that in reality probably does not exist. In paragraph 3 'Where can I park?' residents are warned that there is not '...any guarantee that a parking space will always be available'. Perhaps the warning should be more honest and state that 'it is unlikely that there will be a convenient parking space'. Stealth tax 1) Why is the commuter parking deterrent 4.5 hours in this proposal and 1 to 2 hours elsewhere? 2) The initial sale of Business and School Permits is targeted to raise £36.5k, the employment cost of a full time Civil Enforcement Officer is substantially less than this and incremental administrative costs for the scheme I guess are insignificant. The proposals provide no explanation for such a substantial cash grab from the Epping town economy by North Essex Parking Partnership. Strategy 1) Transport: there appears to be no coordination with TFL and their parking facilities, bus companies and the use of say North Wield to facilitate the operation of park and ride services. Ill thought through restrictions and cost impositions have historically caused parking issues elsewhere. As an aside the sale of the Central Line from Epping to Ongar was a huge error of judgement and the subsequent failure of the authorities to bring the 'developers' who acquired the line to account for their broken promises is scandalous. 2) It is undoubtedly the case that crass parking policies introduced to Epping have contributed to the decline of the High Street, I cannot see how this proposal demonstrates any coordinated thinking by the authorities to help shops and businesses. The councils own a substantial amount of vacant property just off the high street, at least in the

short term this should be factored into the local parking policies to expand capacity without causing unnecessary cost and inconvenience to residents. Hypothecation The only basis for raising this income and inconveniencing residents could be if the income were to be reinvested and demonstrably defrayed on local health and safety traffic related projects such as traffic calming, road and drain maintenance, cycle lanes and the return of local policing none of this unfortunately forms part of the Intention. Conclusion The justification for the proposal is disingenuous and betrays complete lack of a coordinated service delivery by a public authority to residents, businesses and other users of the town and should be discontinued. Regards

Subject: I live in crows road epping and see no reason for oermit parking ,other than to make money for council. I already pay road tax to park on public highways . if you want permit parking give it free to residents . as everyone who dose park in this road pays Subject: they have the right to park . to charge for permits at a time when everyone is finding money tight is a rip off 41 Good morning, We live on Crows Road in Epping, and have received information concerning the new revised parking permit proposals, which will affect our road. I'm emailing you to register our strong objection regarding the number and location of business permits, which have been suggested in the revised proposal Parking on our road is extremely difficult, mainly due to the number of commuters who park there, but also because of business parking. The houses towards the end of Crows Road (especially by the two greens) have no off street parking or option to convert their front gardens to park off street, so the only place there is to park is on the road, which is often impossible because of the commuter and business parking. We are therefore in favour of the permits, but the number of business permits (80) seems extremely high and we are very concerned that they will take away parking space from residents, especially since the road is very narrow and cars can only be parked on one side of the road. We would request that you review the number of business permits you will allow and also consider restricting these to the top of Crows Road near the High Street, where the residents have their own off street parking driveways they can use. We would request that the parking at the bottom end of the Crows Road (the section between Upper Swaines and Lower Swaines) is restricted for residents parking only. I'd be grateful if you could acknowledge receipt of my email, thank you!

42 We are writing to get clarity on the situation regarding residents parking in Regent Road and Crows Road. We understand that the proposals are now to cover a larger area for business parking permits to that originally planned. I would stress that Regent Road is already very congested with inconsiderate business people making it a hazard for any emergency vehicle to gain access. This is also the case for the dustcart. My concerns are that if the business parking permit has been extended this will only exacerbate the problem in our road for residents. Whilst writing I would like to voice my opinion regarding the bend at the bottom of Crows Road near the junction of Oak Road. I feel that this area should have a ‘NO PARKING’ restriction as this bend is very dangerous and this should also be considered in the new parking proposals. Please would you respond to my comments with some transparency.

Thank you.

43 Dear Sirs Objection to car parking scheme and application of it in Crows Road. We have a household of X adults, ages from 19 to 55yrs (and just to be clear, all in our house abide by ‘Green ethos’, we are not petrol heads), but between us we have 5 cars as we all commute to work / University from Harlow to Herts and beyond. The proposed scheme states that there will only be 2 permits per household, so 3 people in our house run the risk of parking fines or have to park ½ mile from our house. How is that fair? With regards to the cost, our household may need to pay 5x£80 again totally unreasonable. Crows Road really only allows for parking one side and all the residents at the top end abide by this without any rules being in place, a simple yellow line one side would stop any double parking by commuters. Other parts of crows road, such as the bend mid-way down gets blocked and can be hazardous, again a simple bit of yellow lining one side around the bend would solve this. If Epping were to introduce a scheme where the residents were not taxed with parking permits, but visitors and commuters had to pay, then this would be a fair solution with better public car parks or park and ride, instead of building on the car parks. I am aware that other Boroughs have free residents parking and visitors / commuters pay – so this precedent exists. Local Plan The proposed parking scheme comes just after a totally un-workable local plan has been released. The Local Plan intends to build extensively in local areas, (e.g. north weald) thus increasing the volume of commuters hitting Epping. It also intends to build houses on all local car parks including the station car park itself. Where are these commuter supposed to park if both local streets and the local car parks are taken out of use? There is no sustainable transport policy proposed alongside the local plan. This could be shuttle busses, park and ride using North Weald Airfield, or even re-opening the Epping – Ongar Tube line all would assist greatly in reducing commuter parking. A new multi storey car park at the station would be far better and sustainable proposition than putting houses on that site. There is a lack of thought out strategy in this parking scheme + in the local plan. On a wider point, the local residents wanted protection of centrally based Epping based facilities, such as retaining the library, retaining Hemnal street gym or replacing the fitness centre on the St Johns Road site, and even adding to these facilities with a Pool and Cinema. Instead all these points are now lost from the Local Plan. We are being massively short changed as residents of Epping with the plan and parking scheme. Kind Regards 44 I object to the number of business and school parking permits being proposed. The number is totally disproportionate and will have an adverse effect on residents by limiting the parking space available. I object to pay & display and believe it unfair that Crows Road and Regents Road are being treated differently to other roads in Epping. I believe that it’s just a money making scheme by the council and don’t understand why residents will be compelled to pay for permits to park in the street when available space will be limited under your proposals.

I’m concerned about the increased levels of traffic and unavailability of space for visitors. I don’t see how this will improve our quality of life and don’t see why Crows Road residents have to suffer as a result of Epping Council’s failure to provide adequate parking. The proposed arrangements was not included in the original consultation and you are now moving the goalposts. I had no objection to the original 10-2:30 proposals 45 To whom it may concern, I am a resident at XX Crows Road, Epping, CM16 5DH and have received the new revised letter relating to parking permits in our road and surrounding area. Firstly can you explain why within a few months the cost of the permit for the first car has increased to £50 when originally it was set at £45, bearing in mind this is not a money making scheme and goodness knows what the cost will be for a possible 3rd car, it is hard to dispute, in my opinion, that this is a money making scheme disguised as a benefit to local residents Originally we were told that if required we would be able to purchase a 3rd permit however on this letter it states that only 2 permits will be permitted. We have 3 vehicles in our family one being my husbands work van which I assume will come under a residents parking permit and not a business one, the other is our family car and my son’s car. I feel we are being penalised for living in a house which can not have a drive due to having a green in front so are restricted as we are unable to put a drive in. I also feel slightly aggrieved that I am only permitted to have 2 permits at a cost that will inevitably increase year on year and yet you are willing to allow up to 80 business permits and 20 school permits in an area that struggles to accommodate the residents. Could you explain how this number was ascertained? I am not sure how the introduction of this scheme in this road and surrounding areas will be beneficial to the residents when we are having to pay a high price for parking outside of our own residence and are not even guaranteed a parking space as it could be taken by some one from a local business or the school at the top of the road. If business and school permits are introduced then it should be evenly distributed in other roads such as St Johns Road as I believe our road is going to be used mostly by business and school permit holders as we are central to all services, therefore leaving residence with less parking spaces. Or better still do not close local car parks (which are being proposed) for housing or sell off land to private car park companies who charge extortionate prices to park. Please can you confirm that my husbands van will require a resident’s permit and not a business one? If a 3rd permit is required can you state how much this would cost and how we could apply for it. Lastly, on the map provided, there is a code indicated on the green area immediately in front of our property XX. Can you confirm what this means please. Kind regards

46 Dear Trevor Degville and the Parking Team Parking Permit Objections: Lower Swaines/Crows Road, Epping We write to object to the proposed parking permit details that are due to come into force very soon. We simply do not have space on our roads for the proposed business permits. Our roads are dangerously overflowing with school and business parking already. It is not unknown for emergency vehicles to be unable to pass on Lower Swaines where cars park on both sides on the street. Only this Tuesday, the dustbin truck, and several large delivery trucks had to reverse back up the street due the road space being blocked by cars. If permits are released to schools/businesses, this problem will not be resolved at all. The bend on Crows Road is extremely dangerous during weekdays. Visibility is poor for drivers due to volume of parked cars, and pedestrians with wheelchairs and pushchairs have to risk traffic by walk on the road due to lack of pavement space. The parking permit scheme will not improve this. Double yellow lines would make the bend safe for both drivers and pedestrians.

All that is needed on the Lower Swaines/Crows Road/Coronation Hill to solve the pressing parking problem is a 1-2 hour parking ban, like that on other streets in Epping near the station. Please pay attention to the feedback that Epping residents are giving you. Make this a safer place for drivers and pedestrians rather than raising revenue from businesses and needlessly penalising tax paying residents. 47 Subject: Parking permit proposal X Crows Road, Epping Afternoon I received a leaflet from neighbour XX crows road, opposing permit parking I am all in favour of permit parking, I get commuters parking outside my house from 5am in the morning till 7 in the evening, if I do have visitors they have to park in Tesco and spend £5.00 on shopping. My husband has come home and has had no were to park, I think we should have permits. The people who park on Crows Road are commuters going into London, they drive in and park outside the house because it is free. Kind regards

To Trevor Degville 48 I would like to voice my concerns and object regarding the number of business and school permits being proposed for the parking permit scheme on Crows Road. Can you confirm how many parking spaces there will be in total and how this compares with the total 80 business and 20 school permits? My objection is that if all the above permits are taken up, there will be no spaces for residents or visitors to park, which is our main issue at present. Can you also explain why the proposed parking restrictions are for a longer period during the day than those elsewhere in Epping? I object to a longer time period being applied on Crows Road. I await your reply with interest. 49 Dear Sirs, This seems to be generally OK with 2 comments I’d like to make. 1. When X conducted a survey of Crows Road a couple of years ago, there were one or two families who had four adults all owning cars. Your proposal says normally a maximum of two permits per household, and, exceptionally, three. Since the permits are linked to specific cars, could they not have one each? A reference to the electoral roll would ensure that no one could cheat. 2. The map that was enclosed with your latest letter addressed to The Occupier, XX Crows Road, did not include the lower half of Crows Road, which is about half of it. And that includes no. XX. Therefore I had to look online, but the hyperlink in the letter was of no use, and I had to find the full map by trying anything with Epping in the title. Eventually I found it. I see from this that the final proposal is much the same as the previous one. 3. The parking problem is caused by commuters, so surely it is only necessary to have parking restrictions between, say, 9 and 10am. This would not then penalise those of us, mainly retirees, who regularly have visitors in the daytime midweek. Personally, I would like these plans to be implemented as soon as possible, since we have tolerated the commuter parking in these roads for far too long. Yours faithfully,

50 Subject: proposed parking restrictions in Crows Road Epping

Mr.Degville, I am contacting you to protest at the new parking restrictions in Crows Road Epping. I object to the "sale" of 80 business permits, as this "sale" will reduce the amount of parking for residents and another objectionable way for the Council to raise funds. Also the bend in the road, which at the moment is a very dangerous area,between Regents Road and Lower Swaines , has not been addressed. There are planning proposals for a number of Town Houses on this bend which will give further concerns to residents, as no restrictions for parking opposite have been acknowledged. My suggestion for stopping commuter parking would be for a 1-2 hour parking ban as used in other problem areas in Epping. Why we have to have this bureaucratic system is beyond me, other than it is a fund raiser for the council. Yours sincerely

51 Dear Mr. Degville,

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed residents parking scheme that is due to be introduced in this area. No doubt touted under the guise of safety, or preventing commuter parking, i feel it is purely a money making scheme, and it is us the residents who are going to suffer. Also we have four vehicles ( our 2 adult children still live at home ), so how do you propose we park 2 of our cars if we're only allowed 2 spaces. This is proving very stressful, and is the council going to pay for my front garden to be turned into a driveway to get around this issue??? i'm sure a lot of other residents feel the same with most of my neighbours also having more than 2 vehicles. Is there going to be any help available with this if it goes ahead.

Yours 52 Dear I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your objection to the proposals. We will write back to you when all objections and other correspondences have been considered. Regards Trevor Degville Subject: OBJECTIONS-PROPOSED PARKING RESTRICTIONS EPPING

From:

Receipt required by return email please

We object in the strongest terms to the introduction of the proposed September 2018 parking restrictions for Regent Road and Crows Road, Epping. It is transparent that this is purely a money making exercise with no absolutely benefit for residents. We have lived in Epping for XX years and in Regent Road for XX years. There is absolutely no parking problem in Regent Road or Crows Road. We currently have no parking restrictions in either road and we wish to retain this feature. Almost every resident already has off street parking.

Please note that we have never received any written communication at XX Regent Road about any of the parking proposals. In relation to the September 2018 proposal, we have once again had to learn of this from a lamppost. There is absolutely no justification to make our guests and children pay for the privilege of visiting us. This is unnecessary interference with the lives of Epping residents. We do not want the character of this quiet suburban road radically changed by unnecessary painted white bays, numerous signage and endless parking wardens patrolling to ticket unsuspecting motorists, just to raise revenue. This is the THIRD occasion that the council have tried to implement resident bays and waiting restrictions in these roads. On the first occasion it was thrown out. There was then a new proposal in June 2018, which was abandoned following objections. It was evident that the architects of this latest plan had not even considered local business parking at the June 2018 stage but have now used this as an excuse to issue yet another proposal! Since the first refusal 5 years ago, and the sudden abandonment of the flawed June 2018 proposal, nothing has materially changed in Regent Road Epping or Crows Road Epping to justify the September 2018 proposals being accepted. That is a fact and means that on grounds of continuity, the September 2018 proposal must also fail. Your proposed scheme is of no benefit to residents! We note that you are operating on the premise that, providing no formal objection is received from a resident, this will be treated as tacit support for the scheme. This is ridiculous and obviously against natural justice. In relation to the new September 2018 proposal it is evident that most residents did not even realise that this had been a re-issue of the June proposal. We do not receive free local newspapers in Regent Road or Crows Road, so publishing the September proposal in a local paper was of no use to residents and was not genuinely informing them.

Of utmost concern, we have now established that none of the resident

objections from June 2018 will be applied to the September proposal! This shows how the whole process is fundamentally dishonest. It is cynical, designed to make it appear that during the latest September 2018 proposal that residents did not submit any objections. It is so obvious that you are trying to wear down and confuse residents. All this just to make money!

On the previous occasions, when the scheme was refused/abandoned, we highlighted how the parking proposals do not have the genuine interests of Epping residents or visitors to the town at heart. This has now been confirmed in email from Mr Degville, in which he has made it clear that the stated intention is to penalise commuters. During the day, commuters to Epping use the unrestricted parking in our streets and walk to the Epping Underground Station. This is because of the high cost of the parking charges. We have absolutely no problem with this situation, which does not cause any parking frustrations. Most residents have a drop kerb and a drive. Unlike the local authority, we have sympathy for those unlucky to live away from major public transport hubs into London who are finding the cost of living increases hard. Epping is at the end of the Central Line and it is obvious that outlying

village residents in Epping Forest need to drive to Epping, park, and join the underground for their jobs in London. Where else are they meant to park!!! During the evening and at night nobody in Regent Road or Crows Road find any difficulty in parking because the commuters have left. The space outside our own home is often free at night. We have clear photographic evidence to support this fact and will produce this at appeal should that became necessary. The proposed introduction of ‘no return provision from 2 Regent Road leading up to Crows Road is completely unjustifiable. That section of Regent Road is parallel to the wall of Tescos and does not serve any residential property! In relation to the car park at the Epping underground, there are already future proposals to demolish part of this for residential housing. It is full to capacity every week day. Where on earth are the other hundreds of motorists who need to park for work going to go? Once again, this demonstrates why it is absolutely necessary to have overflow commuter parking in some of the Epping back streets. We must ask why there appears to be a continuing war on the motorist in Epping by the local authority? Local businesses need visitors. Epping is not joined to any other built up area, stop putting people off coming to our lovely town! In conclusion, we reiterate and place on record that there has been no change in material fact since the previous similar proposals were refused and we again register our opposition to these parking restriction proposals.

Regards Dear To prevent parking by commuters to London but to also accommodate some of the parking needs of businesses in Epping, the current proposal allows for up to 80 Business Permits to be sold to allow parking within the EF3 permit scheme. This is a significant change from the first proposal, which is why we are readvertising and allowing new objections and other comments to be made. We would encourage anyone who wishes to object to the proposal to do so. Objections can be made to the following addresses by 21 September: TRO Comments, North Essex Parking Partnership, PO Box 5575, Colchester, CO1 9LT or by e-mail to parking@colchester.gov.uk Any objections that are received during the formal objection period will be considered and a decision then made on whether to introduce the proposal as advertised, make amendments or stop the proposal. The way in which traffic regulation orders are to be advertised is set out in legislation which includes a notice being published in a local paper. Whether or not this is still appropriate is a separate issue as currently that is a requirement. The Notice of Intention for Amendment No. 23 appeared in the Waltham Forest Guardian series on Thursday 30 August. A copy of this notice was displayed on street furniture in the area. Regards Trevor Degville

Mr Degville

I have compared the first and the second (new) applications in relation to your proposals for the introduction

of parking restrictions in Regent Road, Epping. The only change that I could identify was the addition of

the term ‘business permit’, for the proposed resident bays. Please can you clarify what this actually means.

I have not yet found a resident of Regent Road who received any written notification of the second (new)

proposal. The neighbours that I have spoken to are genuinely shocked and angered that you can disregard

the original submitted objections on the basis of such minor changes to the wording. This is not equitable

and will be challenged if the proposal get a ‘green’ light.

I will be speaking to the rest of the street at the weekend and encouraging them to repeat their objections.

I would reiterate from my last submitted objection that I did not even receive a written notification of the

first proposal. Once again I had to glean the full information from a lamp post! I will send in my full

objections (again) as soon as you answer the question about ‘business permits'

We have not received free local newspapers in Regent Road Epping for over 4 years, so to rely on that as

a means of discharging your statutory responsibilities in relation to the new proposal is totally flawed and

must be challenged. Please advise the dates of publication and which newspaper it appeared in. I need to

check back that this actually occurred. Taking that it was published, was their any accompanying

explanation that original objections would be disregarded in this new round?

Please can you copy this email to your line manager. I have copied in our EFDC councillors.

Dear Please find answers to the questions in your e-mail below: We have noticed that without any additional notification to residents, a new version of your proposed parking restrictions has appeared attached to a lamppost in the street. Under a dark tree! In addition to the notices that were put onto street furniture, a notice appeared in a local paper and residents were written to. From your e-mail it does not appear that this was received but arrange for them to be posted which is more than we are legally required to do. Why is there a new version? The objections to the previous proposal were considered and changes made in view of some of these Why have residents not received any further communication? Please see answer to first question Before we once again send in our objections please advise asap what has happened in relation to the original proposal , which ended in June 2018? A new proposal was advertised which has changes from the first proposal Please clarify, will all of the previous objections that you have already received (including ours) be automatically applied to the new proposal? No, this is a new proposal and objections will need to be made again.

Regards Trevor Degville Subject: Parking restrictions - Epping

Sir/Madam We are long term residents of Regent Road, Epping. Please reply to this email so that we can have clarification for further communication with our ward councillor.

We have noticed that without any additional notification to residents, a new version of your proposed parking restrictions has appeared attached to a lamppost in the street. Under a dark tree! Why is there a new version? Why have residents not received any further communication? Before we once again send in our objections please advise asap what has happened in relation to the original proposal , which ended in June 2018? Please clarify, will all of the previous objections that you have already received (including ours) be automatically applied to the new proposal? I need to know, because if the original objections do not automatically go forward for consideration, I will again need to go door to door to raise awareness of this ridiculous money making proposal.

53 Dear Sir/Madam We have the following objections to the proposed parking allocation in and around Crows Road, Epping, these are:

Sale of 80 business permits not included in your original correspondence Parking permits being allowed on the dangerous bend between Regent Road and Lower Swaines

Being treated differently to homeowners the other side of the High Street, which have only limited parking time ban (for 1 to 2 hours) which manages to effectively limit commuter/business parking in that area

54 Dear Mr, In addition to the notices on the street furniture, we also arranged for a letter drop to take place, you should have received a letter explaining the changes and how to make an objection to the proposals. A significant change to the scheme has been proposed to allow up to 80 business permits to be sold which is why a new proposal has been advertised rather than an attempt being made to reduce the number of objections that are received. Your objections have been noted and will be considered along with all other objections and correspondences that are received during the objection period. A decision will then be made on

whether to introduce the proposal as advertised, make amendments or stop the proposal. We will write back to you when this decision has been taken. In regard to the questions you have raised, please find responses below: If parking is such an issue why are your plans for 10.00-2.30 when already a restriction exists near the station of 10.00-11.00 which works perfectly well. The proposed times will impact on residents even more. Historically one hour restrictions have been used to prevent commuter parking issues but with changes to working patterns, such as flexible working, these are not considered to be as effective as they once were as can be seen in other roads near to Epping station where there is commuter parking despite 1 hour restrictions being in place. How have the cost of permits been arrived at. The cost of permits is set by the North Essex Parking Partnership’s Joint Committee which is made up of councillors from the authorities in the partnership (Braintree, Colchester, Epping Forest, Essex County, Harlow, Uttlesford and Tendring councils). The prices have to take into account the cost of setting up and maintaining permit schemes such as the introductory costs (advertising, lines, signs) and on-going costs (officers to patrol and associated costs such as uniforms, hand held devices, rent of accommodation, administrative function costs such as IT systems, staff to administer the permit system and maintenance of lines and signs). Should your scheme be implemented where will the income stream be directed. Please ,however, don’t tell me it will be to run the plan. Payments go to the North Essex Parking Partnership, if there is a surplus it is spend on parking related matters such as the remarking of parking and waiting restrictions, introduction of new traffic orders or other projects such as the work we do around school safety. You stated that “ if 75% to 85% “ of residents support the scheme it will be implemented. Please explain that if people do not respond, will their lack of response be considered as supporting or not supporting your proposals. Also why a difference of 5%,very vague it should be a definite % figure. If people do not respond it will be taken that they do not wish to object to the proposal but whether or not the proposed traffic regulation order is made does not depend on the number of objections that are received but upon the strength of argument put forward in the objections. If the local authority wish to encourage visitors to the town then why do rumours exist that there are plans to build on the existing parking at Bakers Lane and the station car parks, surely if people are to be encouraged into the town then parking is a priority. Epping Forest District Council operates its off-street car park management and policies independently from the NEPP. The future of Bakers Lane or any other car park would be something that you needed to directly contact Epping Forest District Council about as NEPP are unable to comment on this. Lastly ,a simple remedy to problem parking on the corners of our road could be easily remedied, double yellow lines and an extension of existing lines by a few feet would allow our dust cart drivers and other delivery vehicles better access. As part of the initial proposal we have introduced new waiting restrictions in the permit scheme catchment area. If you wish to apply for additional waiting restrictions to extend the current yellow

lines a new application would need to be completed. Details of how to do this and an on-line application form can be found on our website at the below: http://www1.parkingpartnership.org/north/technical.php Regards Trevor Degville

55 Dear Mr Degville,

I appreciate your response to my email but am very disappointed with your reply.

I am sure that your North Essex Parking Partnership have covered their legal obligations by posting these

notices and your duty to advise residents is considered to be duly completed.

However,I do feel that the manner in which you will claim that residents have been advised is very

underhanded, morally wrong and certainly not in the spirit to allow any form of discussion.It is quite

obvious that if residents are not aware ,that because of your minor amendments, that they must now contact

you again to register their objections ,then it would be very easy for you to claim that the number of people

now raising objections has dropped since your original proposals were sent out to each address in May.I

believe this is especially so when I am sure you are aware of the hostility to your plans is well documented.

So moving on I will now relist my objections and add another suggestion.

1) I do not believe that residents should have to pay to park on the road outside their house when they

already pay a road tax.

2)I believe this scheme smacks of yet another money making scheme that once installed is a licence to print

money for the future and am sure that the cost will rise rapidly and quickly.

3)Commuter parking can be annoying but not one that I need to pay for and is not an issue down Regent

Road.

4) If these plans were genuinely on behalf of residents to make our street safer and a better environment

rather than a money making scheme then the first permit should be free of any charge.

The questions that I raised in my objections to you in May still remain unanswered and they are

1) If parking is such an issue why are your plans for 10.00-2.30 when already a restriction exists near the

station of 10.00-11.00 which works perfectly well.The proposed times will impact on residents even more.

2) How have the cost of permits been arrived at.

3)Should your scheme be implemented where will the income stream be directed. Please ,however, don’t

tell me it will be to run the plan.

4) You stated that “ if 75% to 85% “ of residents support the scheme it will be implemented.Please explain

that if people do not respond, will their lack of response be considered as supporting or not supporting your

proposals. Also why a difference of 5%,very vague it should be a definite % figure.

5)If the local authority wish to encourage visitors to the town then why do rumours exist that there are plans

to build on the existing parking at Bakers Lane and the station car parks, surely if people are to be

encouraged into the town then parking is a priority.

Lastly ,a simple remedy to problem parking on the corners of our road could be easily remedied, double

yellow lines and an extension of existing lines by a few feet would allow our dust cart drivers and other

delivery vehicles better access.

Thank you for your time in reading this email and truly hope that you may consider the points I have made.

On 12 Sep 2018, at 09:22, Trevor Degville <Trevor.Degville@colchester.gov.uk> wrote:

56 Dear Mr ,

This is a new proposal so any objections will need to be made again. Regards

Trevor Degville 57 Sent: 11 September 2018 17:08:45 To: Parking Subject: Parking permit scheme Epping, Regent Road.

Dear Sirs, I have been lead to understand that the documents that you have posted to various lamp posts in the area

have some changes to those documents that were sent to each address in the areas affected by these proposals.

Could you please confirm that the objections that I raised earlier this year still stand or have I now got to raise new

objections based on these new changes.

I will await your reply, thank you.

58 Good evening, I hereby strongly object to Epping parking restrictions along Regent road and Crows road CM165DL. I as a resident feel that the current parking restrictions works perfectly well. I have no objections for the commuters to park as they have done for years. The idea of charging residents and commuters to use parking outside there home seems to be a big money making swindle Any further questions please don’t hesitate in contacting me via email or on We object to residents being expected to pay anything for parking near their homes. Commuters should have as much an opportunity to park as local workers if spaces are not available at the station. A larger car park at the station presumably an issue for others. Residents should not have to pay for themselves or a visitor to park across their own driveway. The scheme needs to take into account parking for carers/medical staff and tradespersons.

59 Hi With reference to the proposed parking restrictions in Epping REGENT ROAD Cm16 5DL I strongly object to what is proposed as follows. There should be parking restriction (single yellow line) outside of XX Regent Road because when cars park outside all day, delivery lorries and dustbin vehicles cannot get around the bend as it is to narrow to turn when a car is parked there. Drivers are knocking on my door several times a day asking if I can move the parked car. The dangerous blind bend in Crows Road at junction with Oak will lead to serious accidents if parking is allowed to continue. I have witnessed and almost been involved in several near head on car accidents there. We have brought this to attention several times as have many people but the situation has been ignored. This needs to be addressed urgently before a fatality. The proposed Business permits in Regent Road.: This is a residential area with not enough parking for residents. Why should we have to purchase a parking permit and then find we are unable to park as a "business rate" has secured parking? This is not a Business parking Road,

- we bought into a residential road. Yellow lines with a restrictive parking time between 2 hours per day would suffice to stop all day commuter parking, which is the main problem. I therefore register my objections as above, and believe that the proposal made by Colchester Parking are not beneficial to residents and certainly need to take into account the dangerous parking in Crows Road and outside XX Regent Road. Yours faithfully

60 I am writing again to object to the implementation of a parking permit scheme for Regent Road Epping. Further to the initial proposal there are now plans to sell business permits and school permits to allow parking in Regent Road, I assume to create revenue. Along with resident parking there is not enough parking space to support these additional permits. To demonstrate this I counted 30 cars parked in Regents Road this morning, 2 or which were illegally parked on double yellow lines, and there was no available parking spaces. Business and School permits will have a negative impact on the residents of the street(and their visitors) to park their own cars, and on people visiting the High St and Market. The requirement to have a permit to park between 10 to 14:30 to stop commuter parking will also have a negative impact on residents, visitors and on the High St and Market. To stop commuter parking surely it makes more sense to have a parking ban for a couple of hours in the morning, as currently in other streets in Epping . 61 Dear Ms I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail. All objections and other correspondences will be considered at the end of the formal objection period when a decision will be made on whether to introduce the proposal as advertised, make amendments or stop the proposal. We will write back to you when this decision has been taken. In the meantime I have replied to your questions below: 1)It would appear that the latest proposals include a large number of business permits which would considerably reduce the amount of parking space available to residents, consequently we may well pay for unavailable parking. Yes, the new proposal does allow for the sale of 80 business permits, these would be to local workers in Epping whilst preventing parking by commuters to London. We received objections from businesses to the original proposal and it was not considered beneficial to continue without allowing some business parking. It appears that many local workers are already parking in the proposed scheme catchment area and this is an attempt to manage the parking that is available. 2)No consideration has been made of the very dangerous bend on Crows road as it would appear that parking permits will be issued for this dangerous hazard. We generally find that the introduction of permit parking solves many issues such as this but if it remained it could be looked into at a later stage. As the proposal has been advertised it would need to be advertised separately rather than dealt with under this proposal. 3) Residents manage the parking problems satisfactorily and although there continues to be an issue with commuter parking a permit scheme will not improve the situation there will still be 100% take up of any parking spaces. In fact it may lead to more households paving over their

front gardens which would have negative effects on the environment as there is likely to be flooding during heavy rain. If residents do not feel that the proposal will be of benefit to them we would encourage them to make an objection so that their views can be taken into consideration when the decision on the proposal is made. The proposals are a money making scheme for the North Essex Parking partnership and the Council. There has been no consultation with local residents and I would appreciate a reply to my concerns. The proposals have been made following applications from residents in streets near to Epping for permit parking. Whether or not a scheme is introduced depends on the outcome of the objection process. Has any thought been given to a park and ride scheme to Epping station from North Weald airfield? This would be a matter for ECC as the Highway Authority rather than NEPP. Regards Trevor Degville 62 Dear Sir I am a resident of Regent Road Epping and am writing to voice my objections to the proposals for parking permits covering a large section of Epping. 1)It would appear that the latest proposals include a large number of business permits which would considerably reduce the amount of parking space available to residents, consequently we may well pay for unavailable parking. 2)No consideration has been made of the very dangerous bend on Crows road as it would appear that parking permits will be issued for this dangerous hazard. 3) Residents manage the parking problems satisfactorily and although there continues to be an issue with commuter parking a permit scheme will not improve the situation there will still be 100% take up of any parking spaces. In fact it may lead to more households paving over their front gardens which would have negative effects on the environment as there is likely to be flooding during heavy rain. The proposals are a money making scheme for the North Essex Parking partnership and the Council. There has been no consultation with local residents and I would appreciate a reply to my concerns. Has any thought been given to a park and ride scheme to Epping station from North Weald airfield?

63 Subject: Proposed Parking Restrictions for Regent Road and Crows Road

Proposed Parking Restrictions for Regent Road and Crows Road I should like to comment on the proposed parking permit scheme for the above roads to say I think this is excellent and long overdue. These roads are turned into single carriageways with passing vehicles sometimes having to mount the pavements or grass verges to pass one another.

Living in Regent Road it is not unusual to see lorries having difficulty negotiating the right angle turns at either end. A couple of weeks ago the Council refuse lorry had to back all the way up Regent Road being unable to turn at the bottom due to parked cars. I would suggest that, due to limited space, it would be preferable if permits were available to residents only 64 Dear Mr Trevor Degville I live in Regent Road Epping and I object to the parking plans offered. *We do not need parking restrictions in our road. What we do need are yellow lines down one side so that cars and emergency vehicles and dustcarts can drive down the road. *People need to be able to park in Epping and I am happy for them to park in my road. * Something needs to be done to help people to park- not cause even more problems by restricting parking more- it will kill our High Street/market. Commuters need somewhere to park. * I object to the VERY DANGEROUS parking on the Crows Road bend by Oak Road and Lower Staines- an accident waiting to happen. I cannot understand how it has been allowed to continue. Our roads should be SAFE not a means of making money ! Yours sincerely

65 To Trevor Degville I would like to voice my concerns and object regarding the number of business and school permits being proposed for the parking permit scheme on Crows Road. Can you confirm how many parking spaces there will be in total and how this compares with the total 80 business and 20 school permits? My objection is that if all the above permits are taken up, there will be no spaces for residents or visitors to park, which is our main issue at present. Can you also explain why the proposed parking restrictions are for a longer period during the day than those elsewhere in Epping? I object to a longer time period being applied on Crows Road. I await your reply with interest. 66 Egg Hall

67 Thank you for your response. I understand there are costs but this seems like something the local council should be dealing with, to whom l already pay taxes. Regards From: TechTeam Sent: Thursday, September 6, 10:22 AM Subject: RE: Egg Hall parking permit (EF3 2018) To:

Dear Mr I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail concerning the proposed traffic regulation order on Egg Hall. All objections and other correspondences will be considered at the end of the formal objection period when a decision will be made on whether to introduce the proposal as advertised, make amendments or stop the introduction. We will write back to you when this decision has been taken. We do charge for permits as there are many costs associated with the introduction of and operation of traffic regulation orders. Initially there are costs such as lines and sign and the setting up of the scheme. There are also on-going costs such as officers to patrol the area, uniform, equipment, handheld devices, accommodation, IT systems and administrative officers to operate the permit scheme. There are also on-

going maintenance costs for lines and signs. The cost of permits in Epping Forest District are not the most expensive that are offered in the districts where NEPP operates with a first permit being the equivalent of less than a £1 per week. Nonetheless, if residents do not wish to pay for permits we would encourage them to object to the proposal. Regards Trevor Degville Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 08:02 To: Parking Subject: Egg Hall parking permit (EF3 2018) Good morning I have received your letter about plans to introduce parking permits to Egg Hall (EF3 2018). Why as a resident should I have to pay for a permit? Surely a permit should just be given to residences as I am sure that who the scheme is designed to help. Otherwise it just sounds like a scheme to make money.

Ingles Mead 68 Subject: Permit parking

In response to the proposed parking permits for Ingels Mead , Epping. I totally disagree with this proposal as I do not feel that the permits will increase the amount of parking spaces for residents , as the 80 spaces issued for businesses will still create many of the cars parking in our street because it is close to the town . Therefore spaces for residents will not be available. It will be the same problem but we shall be paying for it . Also there has been no consideration for people on low income. My son is a student and needs his car to get to university. He will have to pay the full amount for the permit which is totally unfair. My family has three cars . Are you saying that we cannot be at home together during the hours of restricted parking as only two permits are issued? You are giving them away to people who do not live here , instead of giving them to residents . Who I would have thought are more important? Another point to raise is , if I have a council gas service man here for literally half an hour. Am I supposed to use a visitors permit ,which I feel is a total waste of one ? Thankyou for the opportunity to get my points across. Regards 69 Subject: Proposed introduction of parking permit scheme Ingelsmead Epping CM16 5AJ

To whom it may concern Re: Proposed introduction of parking permit scheme Ingelsmead Epping CM16 5AJ As a resident living in Ingelsmead Epping I would like object to one particular aspects of the proposed parking permit scheme. If the aim of the scheme is to improve parking access for residents living in the area, it has failed before it has started by offering parking permits to people working in the Epping area. it has been stated that there is parking capacity for both residents and people working in the area but this is incorrect. The current situation means that residents are often parking on grass verges due to the lack of parking spaces. It is obvious that the drive for allowing business parking permits is financially driven, has no benefit to local residents and does not address the initial concern raised. In essence we will have the same parking conditions but will now have to pay for the privilege of parking outside our homes - when we can find a space.

Regards

70 Subject: EF3 Ingles Mead Wheelers Rayfield

Dear Sr/Madam, I have some concerns and questions regarding the proposed resident parking permits in Wheelers. As stated on your website Wheelers Epping - Both sides 12.0 metres west from the junction with Ingels Mead to a point 12.0 metres north from the junction with Rayfield. 1. Please can you explain how parking will be on both sides, as the road isn't wide enough and at the moment cars are parked on one side and if a car parks on the other side this causes problems with large vehicles to get access e.g refuse lorries, delivery lorries and emergency vehicles. 2. Are your aware that the grass verge outside houses 9 to 15 Wheelers has runways in it to get access to residents driveways which is not shown on the map below. Making it difficult for people to park on that side in the road and if they do makes it very difficult for residents to get on their own driveway e.g being blocked.

3. Blue badge parking. My father has a blue badge which means he doesn't need a parking permit when visiting but will he be able to park on the runway outside my house during 10am and 2.30pm?

I look forward to hearing from you.

71 Lincolns Field

Above letter received from 10 residential properties An 8 page letter has also been received from one of the 10 properties which explains personal circumstances and wants to ensure that the pavement is not blocked 80 Subject: PARKING PROPOSALS

My name is , Lincolns Field, Epping, Essex, CM16 5DZ. Tel XX and I would like to object to the current proposals for RESIDENTS and BUSINESS parking permits scheme. In the original proposals , it was for residents only would be able to apply for permits allowing them to be able to park there vehicles outside there own properties. As the new proposal allows businesses to apply for parking permits, which defeats the object of the original intentions of the residents that signed a partition to obtain parking restriction. and not for the council or the perking partnership to make a profit on the residents who already pay road tax and rates. So yes I strongly object to this current proposal, as I am sure that most of the residents will also object to it. 81 Dear Mr Degville We would like to object to your most recent proposal to introduce a resident and business parking permit scheme. In the original proposal, only residents would be able to apply for permits allowing them to park their vehicles outside their own properties or at least in the same street as our property. Under the new proposal, you will allow 80 business permits to be allocated. This would not solve our current parking problem as it is the same people that already park on our roads causing us residents to find somewhere alternative to park and most days unable to find parking in the same road as our home.

If the council wishes to provide parking for the businesses in the High Street then the council should allocate parking spaces in the two car parks next to the High Street. We look forward to your response. 82 Dear Trevor Degville, We are writing to express our concerns about the new parking permit scheme in and around Lincolns Field in Epping. While we applaud efforts to prevent these small streets from being blocked by parked vehicles, the scheme was proposed to us as a residents' permit scheme; now it appears that permits will be sold to local businesses, allowing vehicles to be parked in our streets with the full blessing of the Council. What began as a well considered scheme will now have the effect that local residents still have their streets clogged by parked vehicles, and now have to pay for the privilege of parking their own vehicles, for which still no guaranteed space is available. Residents are worse off than we were before! When the initial proposals were presented, we enquired at that stage about parking provision for people visiting or working in Epping and were assured that adequate provision was being made elsewhere. This appears now not to be the case, and we are seriously concerned about what this new proposal will mean for local residents. We look forward to hearing from you. 83

84 21st September 2018 To Whom It May Concern: We would like to object to your most recent proposal to introduce a resident and business parking permit scheme. Under your latest proposal 80 business permits will be allocated. We are concerned that this will not solve out the current issues which result in us struggling to find parking spaces on our own street. We are not objecting to the concept of residents permit parking, as detailed in the original proposals, which would seek to enable us to park on our own road. We are objecting to the business permits which seems to undermine the concept of residents parking permits. This is especially the case on Lincolns Field since we are located close to the High Street. If the business permits are granted it appears to us that we will be paying a significant amount of money for the right for street parking, while still finding ourselves in the same position we are in today.

We look forward to hearing your response. Lower Swaines 85 Subject: complete objection to the proposed parking scheme EF3

As a resident of Lower Swaines, Epping I completely reject and object to the proposal for any parking permit scheme. It is completely unnecessary and is clearly a money making scheme. At the moment parking is available to all, equally and fairly. This should continue. Where Blue Badge holders need easy access to their property a disabled bay is painted nearby. Local residents are managing just fine as things are. The suggestion of charging for 20 school permits is vile! Either the school would have to pay for this out of already stretched budgets or the lowest paid and probably part-time workers would almost certainly end up being the ones to need to use these permits. The school will undoubtedly have many professional and other visitors during the school day - visitor permits will again add to the costs of the school. As I stated in my previous objection, I am in the privileged position of having enough off street parking for our cars and those of our visitors but lots of houses in this area were not built with any off street parking at all. They should not be penalised for that.

86 Dear Trevor, I object to 10-2.30 parking ban, why not one hour like other roads in Epping. I feel the proposed time will stop people coming to visit me. Also I drive two different cars although there will only be parked at my house I would prefer a permit rather than registering a car. All I do not understand the need I feel there is not enough parking spaces for the community and high street. Parking spaces at a premium sold to business, I also object. I find it a con to have to pay to park outside my house and sell parking spaces , it is like another tax . Where are the revenues raised going to be spend, as we already pay council tax. With regards ,

87 Dear sir/madam, I am writing to you as a resident of XX Lower Swaines, Epping to make a formal objection to the proposed parking permit scheme, EF3. It seems to me that you are creating a problem where there currently is none. Although there are congested roads in Epping, Lower Swaines and many of the other roads included are not examples of them. There is currently ample parking for residents and their visitors. My household is lucky enough to have off road parking for our cars. It seems unfair that our neighbors will be penalised for not having the same when paying is so far unnecessary. Please log this complaint for your discussions of this scheme. I would like to object to this scheme in its entirety. I think we can manage perfectly well without the additional complexity and cost involved in implementing the scheme Regards,

88 I am writing to you today with concerns about the Parking Permit Plan for Lower Swaines and the surrounding area. My objection is not that a Parking Plan is being proposed, such a plan is long overdue. My objection is the inclusion of 20 school permits. The school in Lower Swaines has not long been rebuilt to combine Juniors and Infants. At the time it was questioned if there was sufficient parking facilities at the new school and we were assured that there was. Clearly this is not the case as we have school staff parking down Lower Swaines, and it is these vehicles as well as the commuters that are creating problems for residents. This parking as well as a very busy school rush every morning and evening causes the residents in this area no end of problems.

89 Dear Mr Trevor Degville, Thank you for your letter of 30 August 2018 about the proposed parking permit scheme affecting Lower Swaines. We were surprised and disappointed to see that you propose to allow a number of business permits and school permits. As we made clear in previous correspondence to NEPP, Lower Swaines is particularly hard hit by commuter and school-run parking. Whereas the former would be eased somewhat by a permit scheme, we would still suffer considerable congestion if school-run parkers continued to have access. When the infant and primary school was built on Lower Swaines/Coronation Hill, amazingly with too few spaces for all the staff, we were assured that school-run parking at least would be avoided or much reduced through use of a “walking bus”. This never happened and we have suffered ever since with blocked or partially blocked driveways and illegal pavement parking. We know for sure that many of the school-runners bring children from short distances away and it is beyond us as to why many more children do not walk, which would also be far more beneficial to their health. The proposed business user permits are an even bigger unwelcome surprise. We see no justification for our residential local streets to be given over to parking for people with no connection to the area. Overall, a parking permit scheme is welcome in principle to help counter the problems outlined above, which were much exacerbated by the introduction of the St John’s Road permit scheme which of course simply led to overspill parking on our streets. You might note, by the way, that on any given weekday there are not less than twenty free spaces in St John’s Road, suggesting that the prohibited parking area should be reduced. We certainly object strongly to your proposed issue of school-run and business parking permits for Lower Swaines and want you to cancel such plans or, at the very least, cancel the business parking plan and curtail the number of school-run permits. Yours sincerely,

90 Ref: EF3 2018 Further to my previous letters and e-mails sent 1st June and 3rd September (2018) I am contacting you once again to register my concerns about the parking situation in Lower Swaines and my objection to the proposed residents Parking Permits. On 6th September we had restricted parking double lines and zigzags painted on the road across the front of my house. Now it seems we are expected to pay for the privilege of parking along the street IF there are any available spaces. I object most strongly. To "residents" Parking Permits being available to school staff and local businesses. can they not use the nearby pay and display car park?

Our's is a residential street that never has enough parking spaces as it is especially since the recent extension of the restricted parking zone. Margaret Close

91 Good Afternoon I am writing on behalf of my mother XX who lives at the above address and has asked me to formally complain about the potential of having to pay for a parking permit so that she can park her car outside her home address. My mother XX would like to formally dispute this and would like to make her thoughts known, to ask a pensioner to pay a sum to park her car outside her house is totally unacceptable Meadow Road 92 I XX OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED RESIDENTS PARKING SCHEME FOR EPPING. For myself this would lead to having to get rid of my car altogether because I wouldn’t be able to afford the outlay of the parking scheme proposed for Epping. I’m a single parent trying my very best to provide for my children. I’m of poor health and in need of my car to do the simplest things that an everyday person would do. Therefore I completely object to proposed scheme

Oak Road

93 Dear Sir/ Madam, I am writing to you to OBJECT strongly to the parking restrictions that you wish to impose in both the street I live on and the surrounding streets. Also to object that business permits and school permits will also be imposed on my street and the surrounding streets, when this has not previously been applied to ANY other street in Epping, as far as I am aware. I also, like my previous e-mail, still object to the length of time the restrictions are being put in place. An hour or two of resident parking only will reduce the number of commuters parking in the local streets and enable local people to continue with day to day with minimal disruption. I also find it objectionable to pay yearly to park outside MY own home when I pay both road tax and council tax already, I do not disagree with a payment to cover the cost (administration etc) should these restrictions be put in place, but a one off payment per car is enough and should I change my car or loose my permit, a new payment made to again cover costs! A yearly charge is just a opportunity for the Council to make a massive amount of money. I still believe that no person has also been to see/visit the roads on which you intent to place these extended restrictions. The extent of bays, road bends and narrow road ways are only going to make the roads dangerous and hazardous for car, vans and pedestrians alike. Also limiting to public service vehicles, both every day large vehicle but emergency vehicles too endangering both health and safety. Yours sincerely 94 Dear Sir/ Madam, I am writing to you to OBJECT strongly to the parking restrictions that you wish to impose in both the street I live on and the surrounding streets. Also to object that business permits and school permits will also be imposed on my street and the surrounding streets, when this has not previously been applied to ANY other street in Epping, as far as I am aware. I also, like my previous e-mail, still object to the length of time the restrictions are being put in

place. An hour or two of resident parking only will reduce the number of commuters parking in the local streets and enable local people to continue with day to day with minimal disruption. I also find it objectionable to pay yearly to park outside MY own home when I pay both road tax and council tax already, I do not disagree with a payment to cover the cost (administration etc) should these restrictions be put in place, but a one off payment per car is enough and should I change my car or loose my permit, a new payment made to again cover costs! A yearly charge is just a opportunity for the Council to make a massive amount of money. I still believe that no person has also been to see/visit the roads on which you intent to place these extended restrictions. The extent of bays, road bends and narrow road ways are only going to make the roads dangerous and hazardous for car, vans and pedestrians alike. Also limiting to public service vehicles, both every day large vehicle but emergency vehicles too endangering both health and safety.

Shaftesbury 95 Dear North Essex Parking Partnership, Epping District Council,

I am writing to object to the proposed introduction of the parking permit scheme covering

the St Johns Estate Epping 1) I do not agree with the reasons for it’s introduction given in the notice of intention This scheme will not provide any additional parking for the residents or visitors who currently negotiate parking with neighbours on an amicable basis.- it is simply a way to make us pay money for the permits to park outside our houses and will add to the daily stress of ensuring constant compliance for ourselves and our visitors. 2) I live in Shaftesbury Road. I believe both myself and other residents on this estate and the shops in the high street will be adversely affected by this scheme in the following ways: A) I object to the Council forcing people to pave their gardens in order to park when I believe that the council should be trying to preserve the green nature of Epping . Hedges and trees are scientifically proven to reduce air pollution in the houses by 80% and i have been very unhappy about the speed with which Epping is becoming a concrete landscape. People want to live here because it is leafy, green, welcoming and does not feel like an extension of a city. Sadly some roads are already looking more like streets in the poorer districts around Birmingham due to the absence of any foliage.The rapid loss of even more gardens will result as a consequence of your intended scheme. B) This scheme will penalise those who want to preserve the greenery and flowers in their front gardens, the people who can’t afford to pave it anyway and those who live in a property where the lie of the land does not make it possible C) Every new private drive takes parking away from the rest of the residents which will make parking more and more difficult for everyone else. D) Epping high street is a vibrant place where everyone can access easy parking and access to the shops- why change this?- I do not want a deserted high street as have been caused in many small english towns and high streets across the country by excessive parking restrictions and extortionate costs for too few car parks. I support local shops and businesses myself and have no issue with anyone parking outside my house when I am out in order to access the shops and local businesses. You have amended the scheme to mitigate the issue for workers who need to be able to drive to Epping to work in local businesses by issuing some workers permits but I do not think there will be in any way enough of these. E) Businesses rely on customers to keep them going- where are their customers going to park? You will kill our local economy and especially the businesses in the high street- I would have thought your loss of rates would stop the Council from wanting shops to shut. F) I object to the 2 car limit per household This is still a predominently Local Authority Estate with many families having adult children living at home who cannot afford to move out. The infrastructure for public transport is inadequate to facilitate working anywhere that is not on the central line- therefore most adults including adult children have to have a car to access work. Making it essential to have more than 2 cars for some households G) The notice of intention still quotes £50 for the first car and the cost in the already controlled streets in Epping is already £60 per year, so the notice of intention is not even correct H) Many people on this estate are council tennants, retired and/or on benefits for various reasons. This is yet another bill that they will have to pay on top of the rising cost of food and heating.I really don’t think it is fair.

3) If you force this scheme on us then I also object to your plan to have only online payment for visitors permits- there should be a choice of scratch card or online A) So that friends can arrive e.g. to feed the cat, walk the dog or wait for us to get in from work. A paper visitor permit can be filled in by the friend on arrival. B) So that those people who are not good with computers or don’t have one can still have visitors C) And what about people who once could use a computer but then can’t because of a disability, mental health issue or being too poor to afford one? I think this is discrimination 4) I discussed the issue of parking restrictions with the Conservative MP Eleanor Laing who came round before the district council election in early May 2018 campaigning for the new district council candidate Les Burrows and was told that she could see no reason why the scheme would need to be extended to the whole estate. This was the first week of May and the first round of this notice of intention was published on the 17th May, does the scheme have political backing from our MP? 5) I do not think that the assumed level of support for your scheme should be based on the absence of objections from any particular road. It is morally wrong to claim that you have the support of anyone who does not respond for whatever reason. Thank you for considering my views 96 I live at XX Shaftesbury Road, Epping CM16 5BJ and I am strongly against this parking permit. It will only benefit the council and put those that live there out of pocket. There is no real benefit other than a money making scheme for the council. No one parks on our road for the tube station or to use the high street. It’s absolutely absurd to do this. I work part time as a staff nurse in a&e and already have to pay £40 a month to park so that I can work and help the general public and now I find out I will have to pay to park outside my own house. 97Just to confirm I am strongly against this parking permit scheme.

I wish to raise an objection to the proposed parking permit scheme you intend to introduce in Shaftesbury Road and surrounding streets. The scheme is unnecessary in this part of Epping, and the number of hours the permits will be required for is far too long. If the intention is to stop commuters parking it would only need to be for one hour as is the case in the roads nearer to Epping station. By extending the hours you will greatly inconvenience the residents you are meant to be helping. I do not find it acceptable to have to pay to park outside my own home. The answer is to sort out the parking at Epping station itself! 98 (I am emailing this on behalf of Mr. X of XX Shaftesbury Road, Epping, as he doesn't have access to a computer and therefore no access to email, any response to Mr. X can be sent to this email address for forwarding to him)

I am writing with reference to the proposed parking permit scheme in Epping for Shaftesbury Road and surrounding areas, I would like to voice my objections which are:

1. In the long term it would not benefit the local residents, the reason being that although an initial 80 permits for businesses and 20 for schools will be issued, myself and other residents feel strongly that this number will be allowed to increase.

2. I can currently park my work van outside my house and am easily able to load and unload my tools, but I am concerned that once a number of people have permits to park, I may be forced to park some way away making loading and unloading extremely difficult.

3. If Epping Forest Discount Council / Essex County Council were to invest in building additional car parks rather than proposed new homes, which will only exacerbate the parking problems, parking permits would not be necessary.

The lack of foresight of Epping Forest District Council / Essex County Council to look at building additional car parks proves to me and a lot of other residents, that this scheme is just a money making exercise. If I have to park round the corner from my house from time to time, so be it, but to pay for the privilege is an outrage. 99 I understand this is the address to raise a complaint about the unnecessary parking restrictions being imposed in Epping. There are several unacceptable aspects to the scheme, the first being the extended times for residents permit parking. In the roads adjacent to Epping station, the restriction is for one hour only (11 am to 12 midday) to deter commuter parking. Why then is our proposed scheme for several hours a day, impacting on visitors, deliveries, builders and other tradesmen etc.? Please explain the justification for these extended hours. We are around a mile from Epping station, so the scheme cannot be to deter commuter parking, and having discussed this with other residents, there are no issues with parking in our street we are aware of, so please also explain the reason for this poorly planned scheme other than to raise money for the council? My other issue is the double yellow lines you have just painted on the corners of several roads. You have extended these lines by several metres into Meadow Road, which is NOT a through road, and by doing so you have XX. XX, by taking away one of these spaces completely unnecessarily, it is now a case of whoever arrives home first will get a space while the other will have to park elsewhere, which will be wonderful when we have to unload shopping but can’t park. How is that fair on the residents? You are asking us to pay for the privilege of parking outside our own homes whilst taking away spaces leading to a bizarre version of musical chairs with car drivers fighting for reducing spaces. This appears to be a cynical attempt to inconvenience residents for the purpose of what is clearly a money raising exercise. As a resident of Epping for XX years, it is not acceptable to order me to pay to park outside of my own house. 100 I’m emailing regarding the proposed parking scheme that is pending for Epping Essex! Although I do understand about parking problems around the area due to the station, but I do object to having to pay out more to park near my home! When I already pay to live here, I feel like people are being punished for having a car and not having a driveway and because of other people’s choice to park along my road for the station. Maybe the issue could be resolved other ways (car park at station, price of car park) There is enough expenses in every day life let alone adding parking to the list,

101 To whom it may concern, Please accept this email as an objection to the proposed parking permit scheme in Epping. I live at XX Shaftesbury Road, Epping CM16 5BJ and I am strongly against this parking permit. It will only benefit the council and put those that live in the area out of pocket. There is no real benefit other than a money making scheme for the council. No one parks on our road for the tube station or to use the high street. It’s absolutely absurd to do this.

As a family we have a car and van I use for work. We are one of the few houses that has no drive and unreasonable costs using the council to drop the curb prevent us from having this done as we’d happily pay a reasonable cost to have this done.

102 Just to confirm I am strongly against this parking permit scheme.

I strongly object to the proposed parking scheme... there is absolutely no reason to put parking and business bays in areas away from the station there is plenty of parking areas in Epping This is just an excuse to extract more money from the residents Tower Road 103

104 Dear Mr Degville We object to the new residents parking restrictions due to be put into place in Epping. We live at XX Tower Road and we have never experienced problems with commuter parking. Most of my neighbours agree that the scheme will not improve our ability to park outside our own homes. Indeed we will be force to pay an additional council tax to enable family, friends and trades people to park in front of our own homes. The scheme is completely environmentally unfriendly, it has already encouraged people to consider paving over their front gardens in order to avoid this tax. The scheme appears to benefit the council most by encouraging local businesses to pay to use our road as a parking facility.

105 Dear Mr Degville, I am a resident of Tower Road, Epping and object to the resident parking scheme you are proposing to introduce. You mention in your letter that the reasons for the proposal are enclosed in your letter but I can't seem to locate them. Can you explain this to me? I certainly was not surveyed to see if I thought this scheme was necessary so your basis for initiating this scheme would be of great interest to me. Additionally, I have a number of other points to raise: 1. Whatever the scheme is based on I don't understand why householders need to pay to park. Why aren't the first permits given free of charge? I appreciate you will need to employ parking wardens etc but surely the business permits and school permits as well as second permits would cover this cost? Are you willing to disclose the estimated figures to demonstrate that this scheme is not just a way to generate income for the council? 2. Giving 100 permits to local businesses and the school is not going to change the parking difficulties for people on other roads. A parking restriction would prevent commuters for using the road. I appreciate people work flexible hours but most people in the city still start work by 11. Surely a 10-11 or 11-12 parking restriction would do the trick! This would mean less of a need for parking wardens too so the scheme would be much more cost efficient! (To us!!) Even if permits were still required they could be considerably cheaper with my suggestion.

3. To truly solve parking issues in Epping you need to provide adequate parking for commuters and local businesses, not penalise the residents of a town where house prices are already ludicrously high 4. My final question is that you mention in your letter that there were a number of objections to the scheme. Can you tell me how many you received? Also how many you require before the scheme is scrapped? I have struggled to find anyone who is happy with the scheme in its current guise, particularly those who need 2 cars. I sadly get the impression that the scheme will go ahead regardless of any objections.

106 I am a resident at Tower Road, Epping, CM16 5EN and I object to the proposed plan for parking restrictions on Tower Road for the following reasons: 1. There is no clear rationale as to why Tower Road is being treated differently to other roads in Epping. If the aim is to stop commuter parking, then 1-2 hours parking restrictions would be sufficient and there does not appear to be a need for the 10am-2:30pm parking restriction to be introduced. 2. The additional parking restrictions place an undue burden on us as working parents who need carers for our young children and who will have to bear the additional cost of parking permits for people who visit us to help us care for our children whilst we are at work. 3. The bend between Regents Road and Lower Swaines is not being addressed. 4. I don't feel that there has been meaningful consultation with us as residents of Tower Road and it does not seem that our views as residents are being taken into account in a proportionate way. 107 Re Tower Road I object to the following: -80 business permits. Will make things worse for residents even though we need to pay. Surely they can park in car parks near St. John’s Road. Clearly a revenue exercise. - need to review plans on dangerous bends and not allow parking permits. Also unlikely bin men can access. Main issue around lower swaines area. - unclear why permits can’t be 2-3 hours. This would stop commuters and deliveries. Many houses have small children and it limits visitors before 2.30 pm 108 Dear Mr Degville I fully object to the proposal of these parking permits in Tower road as I fail to see how they will change the parking in Tower road and I do not see any benefit coming from these permits. Despite people now having to pay to park outside their own homes (when it was previously free) they will not be allocated a dedicated space outside their home meaning they still may lose the possiblity of parking outside their homes to other people. Tower road is a significant distance from the tube station and is not used by commuters. I think the introduction of parking permits for our road is completely unnecessary.

109 Good morning my name is XX i am a resident in Epping Tower rd were a proposed restriction will be put in to place. I feel that if this is the case that at least every household should have one Permit free as i am a driving instructor and already have my family car on the drive it will know make it inconvenient to me and other residents who have company lease cars. I am frequently popping out and back to home which is fine but if i need to be home during the restrictions times what am i supposed to do park somewhere else and walk home which doesn't make sense. Please could the council consider this matter as there will also still be business permits parking here as well so it will still be congested.

110 Dear councillors, I am writing to express my concerns with the proposed parking scheme in my area. I am broadly in favour of the parking scheme and recognise that something has to be done to alleviate parking difficulties for local residents. However, there are some issues which this scheme will not address. Firstly, Tower Road is too narrow to have parking on both sides of the road. Currently, some residents have taken to parking on the green or fully on the pavement on the odd numbered side of the road. I have been informed by North Essex Parking Partnership that the new scheme will not address this issue. The green is being ruined by parked vehicles, the curbstones are displaced or broken and I frequently have to walk in the road as the pavement is blocked by parked cars. This side of the road needs yellow lines. Secondly, the dangerous bend in Crows road needs to have parking on one side only. Currently, cars park on both sides, largely on the pavement, and restrict the use of the pavement for pedestrians. I have been informed that this issue will not be addressed by the new scheme. Also, I object to the introduction of business parking permits which will reduce the number of parking spaces for residents. In summary, it is vital that parking is restricted to one side of the road in Tower road, between the junction with Upper Swaines and the junction with Lower Swaines. Also, parking is restricted to one side of the road on the dangerous bend in Crows road. I look forward to your response and hope you will support me and other residents in this matter 111 Dear Sir/Madam, I strongly object to the proposal of parking permits for Tower Road in Epping. Parking on the road is not particuarly an issue here and I feel it is yet another excuse to make money.

112 Dear Sir or Madam, With reference to the latter dated August 30 2018 regarding the proposed Epping Permit Parking Scheme for Tower Road, I note that it is recorded that the previously circulated proposal notification "generated a number of objections" . However the only response to this is that it is now proposed that up to 80 business permits and 20 school permits will be sold to permit parking within the proposed permit scheme catchment area. I personally do not see how allowing up to 80 business permits - which are more than likely to be operating large vans or vehicles - will help people who actually live in Tower Road? How can issuing all these business parking permits be in your terms “beneficial” for the residents of Tower Road?

As the resident and owner of XX Tower Road, Epping I am once more writing to confirm my objection to the proposed Epping Permit Parking Scheme for Tower Road. As I understand it anyone who visits your house who is likely to stay for more than a few minutes during Monday-Friday 10am - 2.30pm - whether it be a family member, friend, tradesmen undertaking a house repair or making a delivery - will be required to have a Visitor permit. As over the course of a normal year we do have a number of people visit our home the cost of acquiring Visitor permits for all these people could be very costly on top of the permit allocation per car per househould (I note that the annual fee of £50.00 is an increase from the previously stated £45.00 for the first resident permit), and also very time-consuming to arrange. Also particularly with friends and family who may visit unexpectedly, you do not often know when exactly they will arrive or how long they will stay - what happens if a family member arrives unexpectedly and you do not have a Visitor permit for them? Is someone going to be fined simply for having members of the family visiting them? Even if the proposed Epping Permit Parking Scheme for Tower Road goes ahead does this mean that one will have a dedicated parking area outside of one's home specifically for one's own use and if so how will this be 'policed'? Who or what is to stop other people using this space if it is temporarily unoccupied? Also one may have gone through all the necessary procedures and purchased a Visitor permit in advance for the pre-arranged visit for someone to undertake a house repair only to find on the day that no parking space outside your home is available. Indeed you admit under section 3 “The issue of a permit does not carry with it any guarantee that a parking space will always be available”. Finally as someone who experienced in recent years various health issues, I strongly object to any charges being imposed to accomodate the visits of health visitors or carers. In conclusion if despite all the objections received you still proceed with the proposed Epping Parking Scheme for Tower Road then I would wish it to be recorded that the whole of the dropped kerb in front of our house is not encroached in any way by the Parking Scheme arrangements so that we can freely move our car parked on our own drive 113 Dear Mr Degville, Your ref EF3 2018 I write further to your letter dated 30th August 2018. I would like to start by saying I am extremely pleased that parking permits will be introduced to the area between Tower Rd and Egg Hall. I have been a resident of Tower Road since 2011 and there, to me, has always been an issue with parking in the week. I have noticed it more so since I had my daughter in 2012. The parking on my road, and surrounding roads, has made driving difficult with blind spots, breadth of road and leaves no parking available for visitors, workmen, deliveries and of course residents. It is particularly unpleasant when people come and park in the early hours with their music blaring, noisy exhausts and poor, inconsiderate parking. I have seen that our road is used as a free car park, and this is where my PART objection in the parking permit resonates. I object to commuters using our residential roads as a car park through the week and so in turn I am not happy that the council have now, in a second letter, proposed to sell local businesses parking permits. I don’t understand how notification to residents of the area has now resulted in “A previous proposal to introduce resident parking was advertised earlier this year. This generated a number of objections that have been considered. It had been decided that it would be beneficial to allow a limited number of business permits and school permits to be sold to local workers etc”. I cannot see how objections have been raised by residents of Epping. We do not need to park in another road to go to work. If the local workers are not as local as that, and come in from Harlow, North Weald and

Loughton then please tell me how they have been notified of the parking permit scheme to object to it? I whole heartedly want parking permits as the parking is becoming unbearable but I object in permits being sold to local businesses. I look forward to hearing from you.

114 Dear Sir/ Madam, We were dismayed to receive your proposal for parking restrictions in Tower Road, Epping. We strongly object to having to buy permits to allow our children, or family members to park outside the house when they visit. It sounds like another way for the Council to make money. If this scheme is meant to stop parking for the train station, then where are these people supposed to park. The station car park is regularly full. Maybe you should turn your attention to providing enough affordable parking for the station, perhaps North Weald Airfield, then park and ride? Put another level on the current car park? Please don’t make us residents pay for your problem. Yours Sincerely, 115 Dear Sir/Madam, Thank you for the detailed out line plan of the parking bays. However, I protest this plan strongly. Firstly, each resident should be awarded the first parking permit free. As previously addressed in my first objection we all pay council tax. Secondly no one can predict events knowing who will turn up and under what situation; not every one has computers especially the elderly. Thirdly, why should motor cycles have exemption? They are a licenced vehicle. I am situated at the end of the parking zone with a drop curb. There is no logic that I or anyone who has a dropped curb should have to pay if parking over their own drive way. This shows all the signs of a money making objective for someone to profit from. Lastly, you state that there will be no guarantee to park in a paid bay. But again you are happy to take residents money. Shocking. Can you guarantee that there will be no further increase charge incurred in future years? Probably not. Maybe we residents should should seek legal advice. Look forward to your reply.

116 Thank you for the information regarding the parking proposals in Tower Road. In general I am in favour of the proposals. At present some of the residents living around the green on the odd numbered side, Tower Road ii on your map, park on the green or fully on the pavement. This began when parking became difficult as the road is only wide enough for parking on one side. However a precedent has now been set. The green is very badly damaged and the vehicles obstruct the pavement. What measures are to be taken to avoid this practice continuing once the new parking scheme is in place. I look forward to your response.

117 Hi Trevor, thankyou for the response.

I am a trifle concerned that so much money has been spent publicity wise, that the questions you mention

should have been put forward long before any money was spent on proposing a system they may not be

introduced

Furthermore, I find it difficult to believe that commuters are parking in tower road - it’s a fair hike to the

station don’t you think?

I, along with many others believe a time restriction would be beneficial- for example no parking between

11 - 3 Monday to Friday ?

I await the outcome of the final findings.

Dear I am writing following receipt of your e-mail below which has been forwarded to me. All objections and other comments will be considered at the end of the formal consultation period when a decision will be made on whether to introduce the proposal as advertised, make amendments or stop the proposed restrictions. We will write back to you when this decision has been made. In the meantime I have answered your questions below: 1 Is the scheme being rolled out to other roads as well as Tower Road? And if so, when?

Other roads nearby are included in the proposal, maps showing the other roads and the statutory documents for the scheme can be found on our website at the below address: http://www1.parkingpartnership.org/north/policies-troproposals

If the proposal goes ahead it is likely that any restrictions will be introduced at the same time but this does depend on what objections are received. 2. Where is the revenue for this scheme going?

Any surplus would go to the North Essex Parking Partnership where it is used to cover the operation of the partnership such as the maintenance of parking and waiting restrictions. 3 What are the benefits? If any

There have been requests from residents in the area to prevent commuter parking. The proposal is intended to prevent parking by commuters to London whilst providing priority parking for residents, their visitors and also allowing some parking for users of the High Street and Epping workers

Waiting restrictions for a limited number of hours each day were considered but due to changing flexible working patterns these are not as successful as they used to be and are unlikely to be supported by those residents who do not have any or sufficient off-street parking for the vehicles associated with their properties. Regards Trevor Degville

118 Good morning, having just received the information regarding the introduction of parking permits to Tower Road in Epping, I have the following questions.

1. Is the scheme being rolled out to other roads as well as Tower Road? And if so, when? 2. Where is the revenue for this scheme going? 3. What are the benefits? If any. Comment: while I can see that this is a next step to reducing parking in the area, I do feel that those paying for the scheme are the residents. Could you not have considered introducing notices on lampposts restricting parking between say 11am and 1 o clock. This would have stopped the offenders you are targeting!! With no cost to residents I might add. I look forward to your response.

119 Dear Sir / Madam, I am writing in support of your recent proposal to introduce residents permits in Tower Road, Epping. I think this is a great idea and much needed. The volume of cars parking in our street has increased markedly in recent years, which has led to increased noise / nuisance and made driving down the road freely more difficult. The cost of the permits will be a small price to pay if we can improve the quality and safety of our road. As such I’d very much like to voice my support of the scheme.

120 Dear Sir/Madam We’ve received your correspondence dated 30 August 2018 in respect of Tower Road parking permits and restrictions. We wish to place on record our objections to these proposals on the ground that we do not have any problems with parking in Tower Road. We have two cars – one is parked on the drive and one outside our house and we can, at present, always use our dropped kerb for parking if necessary. There will be absolutely no advantage to us whatsoever if these restrictions come into force. In fact it will cost us at least £50 for a parking permit which doesn’t guarantee us a place to park anywhere near our house and we can’t park on our dropped kerb! Also by issuing local business permits, these are the actual cars that are now parked in Tower Road (and not commuters) and so Tower Road will remain the same as far as parking is concerned. The only benefits are to North Essex Parking Partnership collecting the costs of the permits! We should be grateful if you could explain why you’re proposing times of 10am to 2.30pm for restrictions? If you were deterring commuters 10am to 11am would be sufficient as in Chingford! We look forward to hearing from you.

Upper Swaines 121

122- My name is XX of XX Upper Swaines, Epping ,Essex I would like say that I object to the proposal of the sale of our road for 80 business permits which will leave less space for residents to park. We already have a problem parking because of commuters using the station then bringing in a parking ban accept for permit holders would stop commuters so it seems crazy selling permits to businesses who then would use up all the parking space leaving residents no better off, Just the council with all the revenue this will bring in. Also a 4.5 hour parking ban Seems over the top 1-2 hours would suffice. It also seems unfair that residents should have to pay to park outside Their houses, we already pay road tax to use the road why should we be charged again.

Given all the problems residents of Upper Swaines and surrounding roads have with parking I am amazed at the notion that giving 80 permits to businesses will in some way alleviate the existing issues ! We just need to be treated in the same way as the other roads who have this system...why are we being targeted ? Where is the equality of treatment ? Do we not have any local councillors living in our roads ...or is this just enlightened self- interest and there is some reason we are unaware of elsewhere in Epping which does not require businesses to be able to park ?

123 Dear NEPP

XX the receipt of the documents relating to The Essex County Council (Epping Forest District)

(Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (Amendment No. 23) Order 201x;

1) Feels that the consultation process could have been improved by the use of a dedicated

email address for the receipt of comments and by the printing of street names in

alphabetical order in each section under “Effects of the Order”, particularly section 4;

2) is concerned that the proposed parking areas do not make provision for the passage of

wide vehicles such as fire engines, refuse collection vehicles, and buses (where appropriate)

along all the streets affected;

3) is further concerned that, where the proposed parking areas do not leave enough room for

simultaneous traffic in each direction along a road, there does not appear to be sufficient

provision for ‘passing places’ in all the streets affected;

4) objects to the proposals for ‘pay and display’ parking, noting that the first group of users

suggested are ‘displaced commuters’ who may be better served by such provision in

streets nearer Epping Station;

5) further objects to the proposals to limit parking to residential and business permit holders,

during certain hours, in front of houses in streets such as Albany Court where the only

possible parking would be across a driveway, requiring the permission of the householders

concerned, which parking is currently available, thereby not adding to the parking available

but merely charging for what is currently available free;

6) and XX to communicate to the North Essex Parking Partnership the opinion that the

proposals should not be implemented until the concerns and objections above have been

resolved.

XX are also extremely opposed to any parking meters in Epping. In any scheme.

XX would also request NEPP consider, in a further scheme, allocating spaces close to the High Street

on a Monday only, for market traders.

Further comments were expressed by residents at XX and these were as follows:

1) The contents of the proposed schemes should be much clearer for residents, who were

sometimes unsure as to what was being proposed.

2) Maps are small and quite hard to read for some.

3) The whole consultation process should be assessed as it seems rather piecemeal.

4) Some residents were not happy to see business permit holders parking outside their

houses, preventing them from parking, particularly Beaconfield Road.

5) The style of certain roads, such as Albany Court, Epping, should be taken into

consideration, as it has multiple dropped kerbs.

XX would like to be informed of the outcome of these proposed schemes.

Yours faithfully

General/Other

124 From a resident of Chapel Road

125 Dear Sirs, I am a resident of St Johns Road in Epping - living at no. XX where permit parking has been in force for some years now, and we have no off-street parking at our house. We are a household of X adults - my wife and our three children, who all still live with us at home. As a result of them needing vehicles for their work as well, we have 4 cars in our household. When permit parking was brought in, we successfully applied for a third permit, but were told that there was no possibility of having a fourth permit. This did not cause a major problem at that time, as the parking at the end of the road in Lower Swaines and Coronation Hill was to remain uncontrolled, and therefore the other vehicle could be parked there, a relatively short distance away. Although I understand from speaking to one of your colleagues today on the phone that nothing has been decided with regard to bringing in permit parking in Lower Swaines, Coronation Hill and beyond, it is common knowledge that this is currently under consideration; I am therefore writing to ask - should the permit parking in Lower Swaines, Coronation Hill etc be brought in, whether you would reconsider our case for a fourth permit, as otherwise this vehicle would have to be parked an inordinate distance away

from our home. I accept that we are slightly unusual, as most houses in St Johns Road are occupied by families with younger children and so this issue does not occur, but our children have lived their entire lives in St Johns Road, they attended the local state schools and have found jobs in the local area, and two of them require vehicles in order to do those jobs. Many of the parking difficulties in the town are caused by the fact that Epping is at the end of the Tube line into London, but this also means that property and rental prices locally make it virtually impossible for young people to live anywhere other than at home as they start out on their careers. I believe I am right in saying that the parking restrictions were brought in primarily to dissuade commuters from parking in the streets of Epping and to make life easier for the local residents, and therefore the intention cannot have been to penalise long-term residents of the area by preventing them parking anywhere close to their home. I stress that this appeal for you to reconsider the position regarding a fourth permit only applies if Lower Swaines and Coronation Hill were to become permitted areas - if that does not happen, then we are quite happy to continue as we have done for some years now with three permits. Many thanks for taking the time to consider this matter and I look forward to hearing from you in due course. With kind regards,

126 Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing following receipt of your e-mail. Can you please advise which permit scheme you are objecting to as there are different proposals in Epping at the moment. Regards Trevor Degville Parking 127 Subject: Epping Parking permit.

We would like to object to the parking permit scheme in Epping. I would like to voice my strong objections to having to pay to park outside my home, I am an old age pensioner and can I’ll afford to pay the fees, I need to have a car because otherwise I would be virtually housebound, but feel that it’s unfair to us to expect us to pay this fee . You will be hitting the people who can least afford to pay, 128 Hi I'm OBJECTING to the parking scheme in Epping Beaconsfield Road CM16 5AS Thanks for your response Trevor.

Still uncertain has to how making Albany Court permits only at the days / times is a sensible solution to an

already tricky area to park.

As one very basic example on Sunday evenings there often ain’t anywhere to park on St Johns, Chapel rd

and Ashlyns meaning I park in Albany court. I then leave at 6am on the following Monday and head into

Marble Arch where I work. With the new pending permit enforced this means that I’d have to go to my car

before 6am move it from Albany (as by 10am the permit will kick in) and try and find a gap on St. John’s,

Chapel etc.

That doesn’t work for residents at St Johns.

Can you see my logic?

Best

Sent from my iPhone

On 20 Sep 2018, at 17:18, Trevor Degville <Trevor.Degville@colchester.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear Mr XX

The proposal for Albany Court and other roads nearby is for permit parking between 10am and 2.30pm Monday to Friday. Under the proposal they would remain unrestricted at weekends and evenings. Regards

Trevor Degville

Subject: St Johns Road Parking permit enquiry

To whom it may concern, I’m after some advice with regard to the pending parking permit situation on roads surrounding St Johns rd, Epping, Essex where I live. Whilst I appreciated our permits allows us to park on St Johns, Chapel road and Ashlyns due to the number of vehicles coupled with a narrow road I often cannot park anywhere particularly on weekends and on evenings and therefore my only solution is to park on Albany Court which currently does not have permits. In the event that Albany Court becomes permit holders only this will obviously mean I sometimes have no where to park. Having spoken my neighbours they agree that if Albany court comes permit holders only this will mean we are genuinely stuck without anywhere to park. Can you please take this into consideration in your planning process and let me know the outcome asap, happy for anyone to call or email me. Appreciate your understanding and look forward to hearing from you asap

Best wishes

129 Dear Mr ,

The virtual visitor permit system can be used with a tablet, PC, or by landline call to MiPermit or our business unit during office hours. We do also offer paper permits but this are more expensive due to the additional production costs and are charged at £15 for a book of 10. Regards Trevor Degville 130 Subject: Your Ref EF3 2018

Dear Sir/Madam I am a resident of Beaconfield Road Epping CM16 5AR. If I require visitor permits for my property your letter only mentions virtual permits,will paper permits be available for people like me who DO NOT have smart phones. Thanks and regards Subject: Epping resident and business parking permit scheme

131 For the attention of Mr Trevor Degville, Parking Technical Manager

Dear Mr Tegville,

Thank you for your letter ref EF3 2018 dated 30 August 2018 regarding the proposed

resident and business parking permit scheme for Severns Field, Epping. I have a few

comments/queries:

1) Re the Severns Field plan, the electricity sub-station is situated on the northern side of

the road, next to house number 1.

2) Are there plans available showing where the parking bays will be situated?

3) On the "continued overleaf" page of your letter, the piece in brackets in the first

paragraph should surely read "... (including in front of a dropped kerb with the occupier's

consent) ..."? The present wording appears to allow anyone, who possesses a permit, to

obstruct any private driveway (or for that matter any dropped kerb used by disabled

people or people with children in pushchairs).

I hope this will be helpful.

132 EF4 Permit Scheme Responses

Dear Sir/Madam, Revised Parking Proposal – Tidys Lane, Epping I write in response to the most recent parking proposal for Tidys Lane, Epping. I understand there will be no distribution of the proposals to individual residents, so my comments rely entirely on the documents made available publicly.

The stated purpose of the original proposal was “to keep the road free of parked vehicles where any parking is considered to be a hindrance to traffic flow, safety and access”. I assume that is still a valid objective. The single benefit I can see from the revised proposals is that they might eliminate some of the daily commuter parking in the road. However, this was not, in my opinion, ever the major issue, which I believe to be the current hindrance to traffic flow. I therefore object strongly to the revised proposals for the following reasons: (1) The introduction of permit parking for part of the day, with unrestricted parking at

other times, on both sides of the road, can only make the available roadway for through traffic all the more restricted than at present. Currently the access for larger vehicles, such as the Council refuse lorries, is often difficult with parking on one side of the road and pavement parking on the other. With the ‘legitimisation’ of parking on both sides of the road the situation can only get much worse as the available carriageway will be even further reduced.

(2) There is no reason to think that current pavement parking and the blocking of driveways in the road will be in any way improved. Motorists may now feel more free to park anywhere on either side of the road.

(3) Road access to the playing fields from Tidys Lane, a significant problem at the time of the fun fair and the Town Council show, and for refuse lorries and other lorries in general, will be much worse as parking across the slip road entrance will now be ‘legitimised’ by the revised proposal. This will presumably even preclude the current use of parking cones near the entrance to the slip road by the Town Council, which does provide some relief when they are observed by motorists.

(4) It will do nothing to eliminate the overnight parking of commercial vehicles in the road.

(5) The proposal to introduce no waiting at any time restrictions for the first 10 metres

of the road seems particularly inadequate. Frequently the queue of vehicles trying to leave Fairfield Road, Granville Road, Parkside and Tidys Lane significantly exceeds 10 metres, which means that in practice the road entrance is then completely blocked. This precludes vehicles from entering the road from Palmers Hill. A longer length restriction would seem entirely appropriate.

In summary, I view the revised proposals to be even more unhelpful and inadequate than the original proposals. Yours faithfully, 133

134

135 Regarding the proposed introduction of new residents permit scheme for Tidys Lane residents.(Epping) Ref EF4 We have one objection to the proposal for residents of Tidys Lane, and the adjourning residents of Grenville Road and Fairfield Road. This objection is regarding residents in the adjourning PRIVATE road know as Park View. As part of your proposal why would these residents in a Private road be able to purchase parking permits allowing them to park in Tidys Lane, Grenville Road and Fairfield Road ?. Or are you saying that we would now be able to park in their Private road ?

If your proposals allows them to purchase parking residents permits for our road but not visa versa this seems most unfair, particularly as Park View residents already have reserved and other visitor spaces available. Our objection would be that Park View residents should be excluded from the right to purchase residents parking permits in adjourning roads. Please could you kindly clarify the law and if there is any legal entitlement for residents in an adjourning PRIVATE road, which in this case is known as Park View. kind regards

136 - Dear Sir/madam Further to your recent correspondence advising on the proposed resident parking permit scheme for Fairfield Road, Epping, I hereby object to the proposals. Parking in Fairfield road is not a major problem and there is no desire from the residents that I have spoken to for a parking permit scheme. Indeed in Fairfield Road specifically this is seen as of no benefit, will actually be a hindrance for the residents and will in effect be little more than an extra council tax. While there is some parking by commuters this is limited and does not have a major effect. The main issue with parking in the area is at the entrance to Tidy’s Lane where a general shortage of parking space is leading to poor parking creating hazards for both cars and pedestrians. Introducing a resident parking scheme will not significantly reduce parking demand or increase the parking spaces available and will not stop poor parking so will not address this. Indeed the poor parking (which is illegal and enforceable under current rules) can be tackled by normal road/parking enforcement. However there seems no desire by the council to police this. The specific statement in your correspondence that cars parked in front of a dropped kerb would need a parking permit is particularly surprising. Parking in front of a dropped kerb is not normally an issue as this is would not be seen as a parking space, being obstruction of the associated access way. It would therefore only ever be on a temporary basis (deliveries, etc or by the entrance owner/visitor). This requirement in particular is seen as a reflection of the true nature of the proposal, the council generating revenue rather than providing a service. Enforcement of current parking regulations would be of much more benefit that introduction of an unwanted resident parking permit scheme. Yours faithfully 137 - To Whom it May Concern I am emailing with regards to the letter I have recieved concerning the parking restrictions being proposed in Tidy's Lane, Granville Road and Fairfied Road. I note that the restrictions would be in forced Monday through to Friday, and incluing bank holidays. I would like to prospose that bank holidays be excluded from this and treated the same as Saturday and Sunday. I hope as a resident who will be directly affected by these proposed restriction, my views will be taken into account. Thank you for your recent letter about the proposed parking restrictions in Tidy's Lane. I am sure they will be an improvement. But one of the main problems in the road is the indiscriminate parking on the grass verges and pavements at all times. Cars actually park with four wheels on the pavement!! We also need to have either small bollards on those verges to prevent anyone mounting the pavement or, at the very least, no parking at any time on that stretch of road. It is absolutely Impossible to push a pram or a wheelchair along this road without going into the road. It is particularly dangerous at the bend opposite Park Side, where large vans park overnight making it Impossible to see approaching cars coming from Granville Road PLEASE could you incorporate some of the above proposals to prevent a pedestrian being knocked down and to try and value our once green verges. It is no good stopping parking between a few hours in the middle of the day if the vehicles still cause carnage at other times.

138 - Dear Mrs , There is a legal process that needs to be followed when making traffic regulation orders. At this stage the only way to alter the proposal that has been made is to treat your e-mail as an objection and then amend the proposal to include your property after the objection period has finished. Regards

139 - Dear Trevor

The purpose of my email was to highlight a shortcoming in your proposal.

I am simply looking for your acknowledgement that without including numbers XX Palmers hill in the

scheme, you would leave these two properties without any on street parking.

This situation arises because these two properties are fronting onto a main road and busy junction, of which

there is a no waiting at any time parking restriction.

Therefore dropped curb access to the driveways of both of our properties is located on Fairfield road.

It appears that it has simply been an oversight that we have been omitted from the properties list of which

these proposals directly affect.

Please acknowledge this situation and make sure that our properties are included in the proposal.

Regards

Sent from my iPhone

On 4 Sep 2018, at 18:31, Trevor Degville <Trevor.Degville@colchester.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear Mrs, I am writing following receipt of your e-mail which has been forwarded to me. Your address was not included in the original proposal as it is Palmers Hill but copies of the statutory documents that were sent out to Fairfield Road and other roads nearby can be found on our website at the below address: http://www1.parkingpartnership.org/north/policies-troproposals

We will need to treat your e-mail as an objection to the proposal (ie you would need your address included in the permit scheme catchment area if it was to go ahead). All objections and other comments that are received will need to be considered at the end of the consultation period when a decision will be made on whether to introduce the proposal as advertised, amend the proposal or stop the implementation. We will write back to you when this decision has been taken. Regards

Trevor Degville Parking Subject: EF4 2018

Dear Parking Services I live at number XX palmers Hill but driveway access to my property and my neighbour (no.XX Palmers Hill) property is via Fairfield road due to the busy junction on the main road for which there is a no waiting at any time restriction where we live. My neighbours in Fairfield have received consultations/ proposal letters with reference to parking permits for residents of Fairfield road however myself and my neighbour at number XX Palmers Hill did not. Can you please see that we are added to the Fairfield road residents list as we will both need to be included for the purpose of this consultation and for parking permits should this scheme be implemented.

140 Dear North Essex Parking Partnership, I am writing to object to the proposed parking permits to be introduced in Fairfield road in Epping. Parking by commuters and non-residents is not a perceived issue by residents on this road and the introduction of parking permits will only affect residents and cause unnecessary problems. 141 Dear Trevor, I am a resident of Fairfield Road in Epping CM16 and I’m writing in response to your letter dated 30th August regarding instituting a parking permit scheme in my road. I strongly object to this proposal. I don’t feel there is much of an issue with non-residents parking in my road and I feel this is just a money-making scheme to make residents pay to park in their own road. The fact we pay council tax and car road tax should be sufficient. Although I have a driveway so won’t be personally affected, I don’t wish to have to pay for permits for my retired parents when they come and visit me. And asking them to come after 2.30pm is an inconvenience because of school traffic. I appreciate you noting my strong objection and I look forward to future updates on this matter.

142 Dear Sirs, I am a resident at XX, Palmers Hill, Epping CM16 6SN and currently regularly park one of our vehicles in Tidys Lane which is a road adjacent to the side of our property. Our driveway unfortunately is not large enough for all of our vehicles, and we are unable to park directly outside our house, as we are on a main road with double yellow lines. Plans are currently being put in place for the requirement of parking permits for Tidys Lane and I am enquiring whether we would qualify to purchase one of these, including visitors permit. Hello firstly the link you have provided in the letter about resident parking does not work. http://www1.parkngpartnership.org/north/policies-troposals. I tried it with proposals in case it was a typo but still no luck. Why were we not consulted about these proposals? I thought this sort of thing was usually done democratically. If and when this comes into practice will commuters/shoppers who park anyway receive tickets or will they be let off? I cannot understand why you are making residents in a gated development pay for resident parking when the gates are closed and only residents can gain access. It seems to me that the only people to gain from this are the council/parking company. Why 10.00 to 14.30? Will that actually stop commuters from parking on our roads? I am partially disabled so use online shopping for my food. Deliveries typically take about 5 to 10 minutes. How are they to be treated? Will mini cabs be targeted? I use them to go to hospital. Please send the correct link to me so I can read the statutory documents.

143 Dear Sir/Madam, I am emailing in response to the latest proposal for the introduction of a resident permit scheme onto Fairfield Road, Epping and other roads nearby. I am a resident in Fairfield Road. I have a front drive and park my vehicle on it. I agree in principal that something definitely needs to be done, as Tidys Lane has become dangerous and only focusing on Tidys Lane would mean that it would just push the problem further round the corner into Granville Road and Fairfield Road. (The problem has steadily being creeping further round, with time). However, my one concern is the fact that you do not allow parking in front of one’s own drive. If I have visitors or a business visiting (such as a Plumbing engineer or electrician), then they park in front of my drive and the only person that is blocked in is me. I think it is unfair for a household to have to purchase virtual or permanent licences if the visitors are parked out in front of your own drive at any time. My understanding, and I may be wrong, is that on such occasions, I would be expected to ‘text’ or somehow provide the parking authorities with the registration of the visiting vehicle in such cases. Not so much for myself but for some of the more elderly residents (I know a number who are coming up for 90 years old) who might find themselves in that position (e.g. carers, or engineers, or family visiting), how you expect them to be able to do this? Not all elderly people have mobile phones, know how to text, have access to email or the personal mobility to always go and obtain licenses from the council and it is unfair to start charging them an additional £50 year for the privilege. Using new technologies can be very stressful and muddling for older folk. By allowing them to have 1 visitor parked in front of their front drive at least takes away that concern. 144 I look forward to hearing from you.

Further to our correspondence, we are now in receipt of your letter regarding the introduction of a resident

permit scheme.

This scheme is solely not the answer. Only today, we have had an accident where a car was turning

into Tidy’s Lane and was hit creating congestion and debris on the road.

This was the exact issue I raised in point 4 of my email to you as follows:

“4) Without question No Waiting lines should be on both sides of Tidys Lane from the junction with Palmers

Hill until the right-hand access road into the flats, i.e. longer than they are currently.”

It is absolutely essential double yellow lines are put on BOTH sides of Tidy’s Lane at the Palmers Hill

junction all the way along until the opening for the flats to prevent further accidents.

The other point of concern I raised in point 8 of my email is more relevant than ever which was as follows:

“8) Cars park on the bend of Tidys Lane/Granville Road which is EXTREMELY dangerous. I have

witnessed near-misses at this point in the road on numerous occasions as the parked vehicles create a blind

bend. No Waiting Lines are definitely needed on this bend.”

Double yellow lines need to be put on the bend of Tidy’s Lane and Granville Road because the parked

vehicles on this bend create a blind bend. There are always near misses here and it is only a matter of time

until we have a severe accident. There are double yellow lines in other Epping roads, e.g. Shaftesbury

Road and Lindsey Street, to prevent dangerous parking so there is no reason this could not be done as I

have outlined. I have enclosed photographic examples to support this.

I would urge you to drive along here when there are cars coming down the road that you cannot see because

of this parking on the bend. It is so unsafe.

The other concern was raised in point 9 of my email as follows:

“9) The kerb is very high along this fence in Tidy’s Lane which will NOT have No Waiting lines. This will

result in vehicles mounting the kerb and parking fully on the pavement preventing pedestrian

access. Pedestrians will have to walk in the road which is not safe. I have seen this happen.”

Cars are frequently mounting this kerb and parking in such a way that prevents pedestrians using the

pavement. This is unsafe and totally unsatisfactory. There can be as many as 4 or 5 vehicles parked here

creating double parking and making access along the road very difficult. I have enclosed photographic

examples.

You can see from this photograph just how close vehicles park to the fence when they mount the pavement

making pedestrian access impossible and this is only showing one vehicle, when there are 3 or 4 it is even

worse. It also makes the access along the actual road very precarious and there have been times when

larger vehicles, e.g. the dustcart, cannot get through at all. This cannot be allowed to continue.

You can therefore see that resident permit parking alone will not resolve these issues. The parking permit

scheme will do nothing to aid the safety of drivers and pedestrians using these roads which I would assume

is one of your main concerns.

A further clarification that is needed is regarding bank holidays. These need to be treated the same as

weekend parking but you have not made this clear.

I would also like to know if anyone from your organisation actually visited our road at different times and

spent time watching what happens. I would have thought that multiple visits at different times were

essential in your considerations for you to reach the correct outcome to make our road safer and less

congested.

I look forward to your response in answer to all the points I have raised.

Your sincerely

Sent from my iPad

On 12 Apr 2018, at 20:30, TechTeam <techteam@colchester.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear Ms XX , I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your objection to the proposed traffic regulation order on Tidys Lane. All objections and other comments will be considered at the end of the formal consultation period. A decision will then be made on whether to go ahead with the proposals as advertised, amend the proposals or stop the process and leave Tidys Lane as it currently is. We will write back to you with this decision and answers to your other questions when the decision on the proposal has been taken. Regards

Trevor Degville

Subject: Tidys Lane, Epping - Introduction of No Waiting at Any Time

With regard to the above I have the following comments: 1) What residents were asked what was required in this road before you came up with this proposal? I have not spoken to a single resident who was consulted. 2) If you intend to put No Waiting lines in Tidys Lane on the road closest to the flats, this is the wrong side of the road. 3) No Waiting lines should be in Tidys Lane in front of the houses to prevent any further deterioration of the grass verges. Have you observed the state of these verges?

4). Without question No Waiting lines should be on both sides of Tidys Lane from the junction with Palmers Hill until the right-hand access road into the flats, i.e. longer than they are currently.

5) Vehicles park on both sides of Tidys Lane. This has only happened since the double yellow lines were introduced extensively in other parts of Epping. Those parking there are not all residents but commuters and council and hospital workers. Weekend parking differs from weekday parking. 6) This week the garbage truck could not get down Tidys Lane due to the cars on both sides of the road. 7) You intend to stop the No Waiting lines at the end of the grass triangle near the Stonards Recreation Ground entrance. Cars will then park on the unmarked part of Tidys Lane, effectively just moving the problem further along the road. 8) This will make access at this point of the road dangerous. Cars park on the bend of Tidys Lane/Granville Road which is EXTREMELY dangerous. I have witnessed near-misses at this point in the road on numerous occasions as the parked vehicles create a blind bend. No Waiting Lines are definitely needed on this bend. 9) The kerb is very high along this fence in Tidys Lane which will NOT have No Waiting lines. This will result in vehicles mounting the kerb and parking fully on the pavement preventing pedestrian access. Pedestrians will have to walk in the road which is not safe. I have seen this happen. 10) I feel a better solution would be to introduce a 2-hour or 3-hour no parking restriction from say 10.00 to 1.00 to prevent commuters, council staff and hospital staff parking in Tidys Lane. If you do not carry out this proposal in the correct way, you will create more problems further along the road not only making it dangerous for residents as pedestrians and drivers, but restricting access to emergency vehicles. Pushing the congestion further down the road is not the answer. I look forward to your response to each of the points I have raised. Regards 145 Sir/Madam, We write in response to a notice of intention to introduce resident permit parking in our road, cm16 6su - Fairfield road. As a resident we object to the proposal as we don't feel it is necessary, and do not see why it would be beneficial in anyway. 146 Dear Sir or Madam Further to your letter dated 30th August. I live in Fairfield Road and if this is a scheme to deter shoppers and commuters can you answer the following questions:- 1. Why are residents expected to pay for permits if you are trying to deter shoppers and commuters? 2. Is Parkside included and if so why, as it is a gated community and therefore shoppers and commuters can't get in to park. 3. With shops in Epping closing, at least 11 empty at the moment, why would you want to deter shoppers? 4. If you put in restrictions surely you are only going to have shoppers and commuters parking in non restricted streets.

It appears to be a scheme which penalises residents more than anyone else whilst making money for the council. Shoppers and commuters who don't want to pay car parking fees will always find somewhere free to park. 147

148

EFDC Amendment No.23 – Response from XX

1. This response is submitted on behalf of XX, Coronation Hill, CM16 5DU.

2. The XX are required to be at XX. The XX day ends between XX. XX attend XX from XX or

after XX. XX.

3. As the largest employer within the proposed permit area we remain concerned by the

impact of the proposed scheme on some of our employees, who play a crucial role in the

operation of this essential public service.

4. We are very disappointed that the revised scheme is worse for the operation of the

XX than the previous proposed scheme (amendment 20) previously consulted.

5. The previous scheme stated XX will also be offered parking permits for staff as required”.

We were informed permits would be charged at the same rate as residents’ permits.

6. The revised scheme states: “An initial maximum of up to 20 school permits will be

available to xx, these permits currently cost £104 per year.”

7. No justification is given for this substantial increase.

8. The proposed charge is hugely disproportionate given XX will be required in XX and

often for less than two hours per day and we therefore OBJECT to the proposed charge

and to the scheme as a whole, as currently proposed.

9. We would consider withdrawing our objection if XX parking permits were provided

free or at a cost significantly less than the unreasonable level currently proposed.

Impact of proposed permit scheme

10. XX A high proportion of staff (e.g.XX) work part-time in the middle of the day: 25 staff work

less than 15 hours a week. Many do not live in Epping and find it necessary to drive to work

because of the absence of public transport alternatives. Even where bus routes exist in West

Essex they typically are too infrequent or at the wrong times to fit in with work, childcare and

other commitments.

11. The size of the proposed permit zone and the existence of other parking restrictions in the

town centre and near the station mean no suitable alternative street parking will be available.

The car parks in Bakers Lane and Cottis Lane operate over-capacity (as demonstrated by

NEPP’s recent commuter parking study) and are therefore not reliably available as an

alternative. Bakers Lane in particular is generally full by 8am.

12. We encourage staff who live locally to walk to school. Some staff are able to use other

sustainable means of transport (e.g. the Central Line). However the school car park is not large

enough to accommodate all staff who find it necessary to drive to work.

13. Charging for permits impacts particularly on part-time staff given the proposed cost

represents a substantial proportion of a weekly wage. These staff play an essential role in

keeping pupils safe at lunchtime and preparing and serving school lunches. In recent years we

have found recruiting to these posts very challenging. We have been unable to recruit Epping

people to work in the kitchen and have found it difficult to attract staff of an adequate standard

from further afield.

14. Some current staff have already indicated they may have to leave if they cannot afford to

park each day. We are acutely aware that travel to work and parking are issues taken into

account by potential recruits when considering job offers. The introduction of parking charges

will be a further barrier.

15. This is of great concern to the governing body and senior management team. You will be

aware of the pressures on school funding and public sector pay constraints which mean there is

no scope to compensate staff for the extra costs incurred without an impact on crucial school

functions. It is vitally important the school is able to recruit and retain staff.

16. We are happy to supply additional evidence if required.

Visitors

17. XX welcomes numerous visitors (XX). If a permit scheme is introduced it is essential the

school is able to access visitor permits in a straightforward manner.

XX

18. We are pleased to note the morning hours of operation of the XX. We SUPPORT this

change, which will allow XX.

Business Objections

149 To whom it may concern: I would like to object to amendment 23 While the amendment to the original order is welcome it is felt that it does not go far enough to satisfy the requirements of the local businesses that support Epping town on a daily basis. Restricting parking in these areas to 80 business spaces will have a knock on effect on the existing businesses and no doubt will make the town less attractive and will drive the larger businesses out like ours.

This order does either say how it intends to provide parking for those people who cannot afford a business passes but who have no alternative and who have to commute by car. The existing car parks are currently all heavily occupied by commuters using Epping station.

151 Following publication of the TRO amendment No 23 for Epping Forest, I hereby lodge my objection to the proposals for the following reason: Inadequate provision of is being made for parking for those that work in the Epping High Street area over the standard business working hours. Our company alone has 100 employees for which half require parking during the working day. If the other companies and retail outlets along the High Street alone are added there is a parking requirement 2 or 3 times that number. Whilst this is the reason for this TRO to be put in place, the parking requirement does not disappear as there is inadequate public transport from areas such as Chelmsford, Stevanage etc where many of those that work in Epping emanate. This is exacerbated by the overflow parking from Epping underground station which already fills the long stay car park in Bakers Lane long before employees of companies working in Epping arrive. The immediate outcome will be to push the parking issue to the outskirts of Epping, but ultimately this will be to the detriment of the economic prosperity of the town as Employers will be forced to relocate as their staff will be unable to park, change to remote working (again reducing the number of people spending in Epping) or close leading to empty shops along the High Street which then degrades the area generally. Prior to enacting such a TRO sufficient provision must be made for cars to park by either edge of town Park and ride / walk facility, or increase capacity in the in town parking by introducing a lightweight parking deck as undertaken in railway stations. The revenues from the parking fees would increase dramatically as people would pay to park if there were sufficient pay and display 08:00am – 6:00 pm parking facilities available.

151 Dear NEPP, I am writing to object to your recent Epping Forest District Amendment No.23. I note that the Statement of Reasons states that the following roads will implement a permit parking scheme: Egg Hall/ Margaret Road/ Meadow Road/ Severns Field/ Beaconfield Avenue/ Beaconfield Road/ Beaconfield Way/ Rayfield/ Wheelers/ Coronation Hill/ Clover Leas/ Lincolns Field/ Albany Court/ Lower Swaines/ Upper Swaines/ Tower Road/ Regent Road/ Beech Place/ Shaftesbury Road/ Ingels Mead/ Crows Road/ Oaks Road / Tidys Lane/Parkside/Fairfield Road/Granville Road. I work locally on the High Street and I set out the following grounds for objection: Within your TRO Parking Enforcement Policy [PEP] Document updated July 2015, you state that “A permit parking scheme will improve the parking provision for local residents, their visitors, as well staff working locally in the town centre and school”. I believe that the introduction of a permit parking scheme in a number of streets in close proximity to the High Street will adversely affect the ability for staff working locally in the town centre to park. It will also adversely affect visitor parking to shops and other facilities on the High Street. The proposed plans don’t include any public transport proposals or improvements to the existing public transport network, which could potentially alleviate concerns over ‘commuter’ parking. This exclusion (or non-consideration) will have a further adverse effect on jobs & services in relation to those provided on the High Street and streets in close proximity to the proposed permit zone if this permit scheme is implemented. This is in divergence with your PEP documentation (page 6). I note that your documentation states that “the proposal should be self-financing through running Civil Parking Enforcement effectively and economically when practicable” – no evidence of this contained within Statement of Reasons or other documentation available at the time of writing on your website.

Your PEP also states on page 7 that any permit parking scheme will “be better for local businesses”. I firmly believe that the implementation of parking restrictions that affect local businesses is directly against this policy, as it will reduce number of available spaces for local businesses or patrons. Your PEP states that permit parking will encourage “commuters and other drivers to use long stay car parks where appropriate thereby freeing up short stay car park spaces for drivers who need them”. All public car parks in Epping are at capacity on a regular basis at approximately 8am, therefore this proposed permit parking scheme does not align with your policy. This will cause displacement into neighbouring streets which is also noted as unacceptable. Your PEP states that consideration will be made to “legitimate parking and loading requirements of businesses”. There are a number of businesses operating on the High Street which utilise the residential streets close by during off-peak hours when residents are not parking as a legitimate source of parking for staff, given that all of the public car parks in Epping are over capacity already. I believe that the proposal you have made for the limited number of 80 business permits is unacceptable, as it is clear that local businesses would require more than this number to sustain (without adverse impact on the local business and ability for local commuters to attend their place of work) the current level of parking. Furthermore, please provide evidence that you have consulted with local businesses and understood their requirements in terms of the numbers of permits that would be required to sustain current parking requirements without adverse impact on the business or legitimate parking requirements? I note that your PEP states that “any proposals for resident parking and on street pay and display will only be determined by consultation with affected persons with the decision to go ahead with a scheme being based on a simple majority of those responding and being agreed by the Joint Committee”. Therefore I look forward to you evidencing that all affected businesses have been consulted with to understand their concerns. I also await the published result of this consultation and evidence of a majority verdict.

152 RE The Essex County Council (Epping Forest District) (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (Amendment No.23) Order 201x I wish to object to the above amended scheme regarding residential streets in Epping becoming permit parking only. I am a member of staff at XX who has worked in the town for over twenty years and many staff at this company are under threat from this change. The provision of a maximum of 80 permits between all local business workers clearly would not be sufficient to cope with need and there is simply no alternative parking. If these proposals are approved, it means I would not be able to travel to work. I do not have any public transport options. If other workers were forced to leave their jobs this could have an immediate negative impact on them and their employers. As these people spend money in the High Street during the day, shops would also be affected. If any business/shop closed as a result, residents would then have less services. If these proposals are forced through, I urge you to at least grant an adequate number of parking permits to workers in the town.

153 Dear Sirs, I wish to again raise an objection to the recently proposed parking restrictions in Epping (Amendment No.23 Various locations, zone EF3, Egg Hall, etc). Firstly, the proposed introduction of restrictions/permits will not allow sufficient parking for those working in Epping. The public car parks are full from very early in the morning and there are insufficient spaces

to accommodate all those who wish to work or visit Epping. Secondly, I fear that the result of the proposed restrictions will be to drive businesses out of Epping. Workers will not come to Epping if there is no chance of them being able to park here. The proposed restrictions are short sighted and will have a detrimental effect in the longer term. Thirdly, the result of the restrictions will simply mean that the roads will be empty, proving that the restrictions proposed are excessive. Many residents have driveways and some have both drives and garages i.e. street parking does not in reality affect them e.g. Egg Hall. The fact that residents are choosing to park in the streets rather than their garage or drive is of course their choice but is the cause of much of the roadside parking and i know that residents are doing this to exaggerate the issue. Increasing parking restrictions will sadly be the end of many businesses and jobs in Epping. I understand that 80 business permits will be made available however this is far from sufficient for the number of workers in Epping - my employer (just one of many) will alone require 80 permits and there are many more employers. Can you please advise where workers are to park if you introduce all of these restrictions. I trust that you will reconsider your proposals taking the above into account and give full consideration to my observations with the sincerity with which they are intended. Please provide a written response to this email before implementing the restrictions allowing sufficient time for consultation. Yours sincerely

154 Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to you to state my objections to the proposed traffic regulation order for Epping forest

district amendment No.23. Whilst I appreciate why some may want the area to be become permitted for parking in the area, there is

already ample parking for residents in the streets. My issues with the amended TRO is that it actually makes the situation worse, by introducing Pay and

display to some of the streets it will force people to park anywhere that isn't permitted or pay and display

restricted, forcing the problem to another area of Epping. By introducing pay and display it also penalizes

people who have no choice to park there, also judging by how expensive it is to pay and display in other

areas of Epping its almost certain that the new chargers will be just as expensive. The allowance of 80 business permits will not meet the required demand as in my office alone this will

not satisfy the demand let alone the entire area of Epping. As I work in the high street amongst a vast number of other people, the increased cost of parking in a pay

and display area will force me to change jobs and leave the Epping area, at present, the carpark facilities

provided by the company I work for provides the ratio of 1 space for every 4 members of staff, which is

far beyond satisfactory. I hope you can understand my objections and reject the TRO.

155 Dear Sirs, Epping Forest District Parking Amendment no 23 Further to the publication of the propose parking permits I would object due to the following reasons:

• Maximum of 80 business permits will not be sufficient for the business needs within the

town • There are insufficient parking spaces within the car parks to allow parking off street • No ability to purchase season tickets as the car parks are at full capacity • This may prevent me travelling to work in Epping, during which time I support local

businesses – they will loose trade due to this decision • Potential for our business to relocate due to inability to employ and retain staff who can

easily travel to the office • Increased cost to ourselves

I would ask that these points are taken into account during the consultation period prior to any decisions being taken. 156 Dear Mr Degville

So sorry I was really busy and on the move when I emailed you, thank you for responding.

The road is Beaconfield road, but I’m objecting in general, I feel the whole idea is the councils way of just

making money from both residents and businesses, and won’t help the parking problem, while more

dwellings are being planed but no extra parking.

Regards

Mrs

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Monday, September 24, 2018, 2:14 pm, Trevor Degville <Trevor.Degville@colchester.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear

I am writing to acknowledge your e-mail.

Can you please advise which road you live on as we have different permit schemes being advertised and

need to ensure that your objection is considered with the correct proposal.

Regards

Trevor Degville

Dear sir/madam

I strongly object to the proposed parking scheme in Epping where I live. It is a money making scheme

and won’t lessen the parking problem

Regards

Sent after objection period finished

157 Hello Trevor

I am writing to you with regards to the parking restrictions and permits that you intend to enforce in Tower Road and surrounding streets which I consider to be grossly unfair. The residents asked for changes to be made to enable us to park outside our own house or on our own driveways with reasonable and safe access. This is not not going to be possible with the conditions you intend to implement as there will be no guarantees even if you buy a permit you will be able to park in your own street or outside your own house. Residential rate payers should not be funding commercial parking Epping forest district council need to address the commuter parking problem not penalise its residents.

158 Dear Sirs Following on from our previous objection to the TRO Amendment No. 20 – Various Locations, we note the publication of the TRO amendment No 23 for Epping Forest and therefore on behalf of the partnership, we wish to lodge our objection to the revised proposals as we feel this does not resolve the parking issues we have highlighted before in our previous objection, which is at the end of this email. As mentioned before, we are a large employer of circa 80 staff based in Epping High Street and over half of these employees commute to Epping, therefore with these restrictions it will have a detrimental effect to us as a business if our staff are unable to park. We note that this new amendment has stated it will offer up to 80 business permits to enable parking within the restricted residential areas, however if this is the total number available for all business in Epping, this will be far from sufficient. As mentioned previously, there are issues with parking in the long stay car park as this is always full by 8.00am due to London commuters which adds to the current lack of parking provision, Equally, supported by the fact that there is (a) no availability to purchase season tickets for Employers like ourselves as the carparks are already at full capacity and (b) as advised by Mi-permit that Epping District Forest Council who have stated we are not eligible for the 2 business permits as our company has not been added to the scheme; this will make it near impossible for our staff to park. We note that you will be introducing new pay and display in both Albany Court and Regent Road, but this is for short stay parking and does not consider workers who need to park for the full day, as our staff need to; so again, we do not see this being a viable option especially if you consider the financial implications of having to pay for 2 parking tickets each day due to the time limits. We strongly believe that with the increased costs these parking restrictions will incur along with the issues of insufficient parking options for workers in Epping, this will have a negative impact to our recruitment and retention of staff and therefore the long term sustainability of our business in Epping. If we are unable to attract and retain staff, we will be left with no option but to relocate which would have an adverse effect on the economy of local businesses and the community as a whole. As mentioned previously, we have been based in Epping for nearly 60 years so relocating is not an option we want to consider as we want to remain loyal to the local community; therefore we respectfully ask if you could consider how we can resolve the parking concerns this amendment would impose. Below are the following proposals we would ask you to consider:

• Include a section within Cottis Lane for long stay (longer than 5 hours) and in order to prevent London commuters using either car parks, introduce higher parking fees before 8.30am or restricting the time tickets are issued, i.e. not before 8.30am. Since Epping became the last stop on the Central Line (previously Ongar), this has created higher volume of commuters, coupled with the fact that it is cheaper to travel into London via the Underground than using National Rail stations therefore unless this parking demand is resolved, it will always have a negative impact to the parking facilities for local workers and shoppers.

• Designate parking bays for permit holders in Cottis Lane and/or Bakers Lane to support local workers. If you can prevent London commuters from using Bakers Lane carpark so that they are purely there for local workers and visitors, this should enable you to provide designated parking bays for workers, which contributes much greater to the life blood and economy of Epping than those that simply park in Epping for the day.

• Provision of further car parks or create a multi storey car park at one of the existing Pay and

Display Carparks; or provide the use of the existing Epping Council carpark to other people besides those that work at the Council office.

• Provision of a free park and ride.

We do hope you can consider the above more positively in order to make suitable alternative arrangements to meet the full requirements of the local workforce and indeed, the retail prosperity within Epping High Street. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss further with you and indeed, to use our professional knowledge to support the council so that we work together in keeping Employers in Epping for the next 60 years of our operational business. We look forward to hearing from you shortly.