Traffic and Parking

The Ridge is already subject to traffic congestion and the corner near Sandrock Bends is an accident hotspot. 

More traffic in this area, including new traffic joining and leaving the main road, will likely mean more congestion for car drivers and pedestrians.

Buses to and from this area are infrequent, and the nearest railway station (Ore) is almost 2 miles away. The nearest primary school, Sandown, is nearly 1 mile away. While Gladman’s say they “will make financial contributions to facilitate additional capacity”, this doesn’t guarantee the amenities will be provided.

For instance, buses from:

  • Hourly from the Ridge to Hasting Railway Station

  • Hourly to Ore

  • Twice hourly to Sainsbury’s but around 38 and 47 minutes past the hour

In other words, anyone living here will likely need a car. Eighty houses with at least one car each will add to the pollution, parking issues, noise, and congestion.

It is currently unclear where these cars will enter and exit the ridge, present options being limited to the narrow road running past Cooper’s vet.

The proposed development will add to already heavy traffic at an accident hotspot (at least five cars have been written off here since 2020) and make parking on the Ridge itself more dangerous. The development will abolish the parking currently available at Coopers Vets and beside the old Lodge Cottage, with increased overspill into the little remaining on road parking in the area.

As well as adding to already severe traffic congestion, the added loss of parking facilities will greatly impact the ability of St Helen’s Community Hall to offer its services to the many groups that use it.

Pictured is a car that was parked on the Ridge and was written off.
Photo credit: Susanne Jones

It is well known by local residents, even if ignored by planners, that parking provision in developments is rarely, if ever, sufficient for the volume of cars owned by the new residents and their visitors.

 

  • The outline plan submitted by Gladman determinedly minimises the volume of cars that will be present on the site.

  • Most households now have a minimum of 2 vehicles and those with garages and drives are likely to have more than 2 so there is still not sufficient parking in those houses

  • Where will all the extra vehicles be parked?

o   On every spare area on the site, potentially blocking safe entry for emergency vehicles, waste collection and deliveries but this will most likely still be insufficient

  • Where will all the delivery vans park, many a day

  • The plan eliminates the staff car park at the vets, where will staff park? The customer car park is not big enough for the staff and customers.

  • Where will the construction workers park in the 2 ½ years that the development will take according to the plan

They will park: 

  • On every spare area on the site, potentially blocking safe entry for emergency vehicles, waste collection and deliveries but this will most likely still be insufficient

  • On the Ridge on the few spaces that currently do not have yellow lines

o   However there is discussion of the Ridge becoming an A road which will mean less parking allowed on the Ridge

  • On the private roads surrounding the development area

  • Use the car park for the Sandhurst Playing Fields – clearly states for the users of the playing fields – what will the Councils do ensure that the local community has access to this area and is not always full of overflow cars

  • On Chowns Hill, Stonestile Lane or other nearby roads

 

Community Users

  • Where will users attendees at the church be able to park?

  • How safe will it be for parents dropping off toddlers at the nursery?

  • How will all the other users of the church hall be able to make use of the facility if they can’t park?

 

We need to make the Council take note of these points conveniently overlooked in the planning application!

Two documents, Transport Assessment and Travel Plan have been provided in the application.

 

These documents list many theoretical assumptions which are unlikely to be believed by the local community as they are being used to drive a conclusion that this site can be considered as suitable for a development with minimal car usage.

 

Despite all the “data”, which contains numerous errors and inaccuracies the core message is that this development is going to be sustainable on the basis of providing;

 

·      A Travel Pack to be given to all residents

o  Showing how many facilities are available within walking / cycling distance

o  Encouraging them not to use cars

·      Appointing a travel co-ordinator for a period of time to talk to residents

o  No commitment is made as to timing

o  No commitment is made as to how this is funded

 

Clearly this is woefully inadequate given the following points;

 

·      In looking at the theoretical data there is no recognition of the topography of the area.

o  It is all very well saying people can walk into Hastings Town centre to do their shopping as it is within a recommended distance, the reality of walking back up very steep hills carrying shopping bags is totally impractical and will not happen

o  The same applies to cycling with the topography making those journeys significantly more arduous and unlikely to be achievable by irregular riders

o  The requirement for the return journey appears to be ignored

·      There are significant errors and omissions in the data provided, for example;

o  The document lists 2 nurseries as being well within the 3.2km so called acceptable walking distance.

o  In fact one of those is about 3.2km away and would require young children walking along the busy Ridge road with what risks to health and safety? How many accidents resulting in harm to nursery age children would be acceptable?

o  The other nursery is based at the Conquest hospital and is only for employees of the NHS.

o  The diagram showing facilities within a radius of the development has a category shown as Doctors/Pharmacies and has 3 marked. However these are all pharmacies and the nearest doctor surgery is approximately 2.5km away. This clearly masks the fact there is no accessible surgery within reasonable access.

o  Sandown Primary school is listed at 1.8km, again requiring very young children to walk along a busy road.

o  Accessible – NO!

·      The Services & Facilities sections refer to public transport, car clubs and parking management.

o    There is limited public transport during the day but not 24 hours so does not provide for a location without the requirement for cars

o    Car Clubs are not covered in the plans but are not visible in Hastings currently so unlikely to develop just for this development

o    Parking has been addressed in a separate section of this website but with inadequate parking space provision parking management is going to be impossible.

·      The location of key facilities such as supermarkets are not accessible on foot and suggest the use of convenience stores which are expensive options for basic necessities.

 

The Transport Plan notes the following;

·      Car parking will comply with current council standards, however the wider community knows that this is always inadequate leading to parking in surrounding areas

·      2.7.2 – states there is no detrimental impact to the public highway but nowhere is this proven

·      The NPPF requires making transport considerations an important part of early engagement with the community – it has been minimal to date

·      3.2.2 states it needs to be sustainable – this is not the case due to limited facilities and local topography

·      3.2.4 requires that residual cumulative impacts on the road network should be considered – no evidence is presented to show this has been done

·      3.3.10 states access to the South of the site is not practicable – no support evidence for this statement is given.

·      3.3.12 says the access point satisfies the policy statement but failure to discuss other access points nullifies this

·      4.2.20 is not a supported statement, people walking along the Ridge are at risk which can only increase with increased traffic.

 

The Travel Plan comments on how the changes in the Highway Code now make it much safer to cycle, even if this statement is accepted there are no plans (or space) to create cycle lanes so it cannot be sensible to encourage more cyclists on to the main East/West Highway with it’s non-stop flow of traffic. Assuming drivers adhere to the new guidelines than an increase in cyclists on this road will only serve to make delays on this road worse.

 

In general the conclusions of the document should be refuted as so many of the options are not realistic considering  the geography and the very busy nature of the routes required to be taken by pedestrians or cyclists  and that the report contains factual errors.

The nature of the report suggests a desktop exercise with little or no knowledge of the actual site and surrounding area.

 

The NPPF states that all significant development should be focused on locations that are or can be made accessible – it is clear from the geography of the site that this is not sustainable and there are no plans to make it sustainable.  This development should be rejected on these grounds. The NPPF goes on to say that unacceptable impact on the residual cumulative impacts on the road network should be considered.