Appendix B - West Sussex County Council

The Holdens Bosham TRO/CHS9006
Summary of Objections & Responses
Objection/Comments
Resident of The Holdens
Believes the proposal doesn’t make
any sense as putting double yellow
lines in the turning head will force
residents in the adjacent houses to
park outside Nos 1-5. This will have
the unintended consequence of
causing an obstruction for the rubbish
cart as it backs down The Holdens. It
can’t go forwards as it is too big to
attempt to turn in the turning head
even if it is free of cars.
APPENDIX B
Comments from Head of
Highways & Transport
Double yellow lines will be placed on
the entrance to the turning head
and not within it. Parking in the
turning head will not be affected.
They have gone to a lot of effort
persuading the residents of Nos. 1-5
to park on their drives or in their
garages to keep the road clear.
Believes this will reverse the good
work as well as removing all possible
parking for short term visitors to these
houses.
Resident of The Holdens
Believes the double yellow lines need
to be extended on the eastern side
past the bay tree. Cars parked in that
spot cause numerous problems;
restrict access for larger vehicles, limit
the turning circle and very frequently
restrict access to the drive/garage for
No. 11.
The proposals already cover the
suggestion of extending the double
yellow lines beyond the bay tree.
The parking in the village is outside
of the remit of this scheme. The
C&ED Team have been made aware
of this and will review the issue
Believes the bigger problem is the
complete disregard for parking
restrictions within Bosham village with
numerous vehicles parking in
restricted areas on a daily basis, on
pavements, verges and on the
grassed area in the centre of The
Holdens
Resident of The Holdens
Is there any way to view comments
etc. by others online...?
Are written notices normally sent out
to homes in affected areas as I don't
recall seeing any...
TRO/CHS9006/DAH
Plans emailed to enquirer together
with an explanation which was
accepted.
The Holdens Bosham TRO/CHS9006
Summary of Objections & Responses
APPENDIX B
Resident of The Holdens
The problem is this: where exactly do
the new yellow lines go? Neither the
order nor the map are clear on this. If
the lines go all the way around the
turning head at the end of the cul de
sac that is The Holdens we and
neighbours would have nowhere to
park, making the parking problem
here (and in surrounding roads) far
worse than it is now for no gain.
Resident of The Holdens
Plans emailed to enquirer together
with an explanation which was
accepted.
Parking in this cul-de-sac is already an
issue but is usually done on a common
sense and civil basis to respect other
residents.
I currently park in front of my house
and am not aware of any issues,
although I would welcome the
lowering of the pavement in front of
my house to enable me to park more
neatly and provide more space for
large vehicles needing to turn round.
I am not quite clear whether the
proposal is for double yellow lines in
front of my house; if so, could you
advise where the nearest available
parking would be.
The proposal covers a short length,
approximately one car’s length, of
the eastern side of the road leading
to the access to No 11 and a garage
that is obstructed frequently by
parked vehicles.
In your final paragraph you explain
that the kerb outside number 6 may
not be dropped as there is no scope
for vehicle access beyond the
carriageway. I would imagine the
same reasoning would apply to the
kerb adjoining my frontage to the side
of number 5. This piece of kerb is in
my opinion, overly wide and if
narrowed, could facilitate the parking
problems in this area.
While we understand No 11's request,
as you can see from photo 4915a, the
silver Clio, currently parked legally,
does not obstruct her entrance or
garage. The problem might have
occurred when a larger vehicle (van)
parked there. Removing this space is
just going to exacerbate the parking
issue in the Holdens, already one
generating a fair amount of heat. Is
there no possible compromise that
would enable us to keep this spot
available. I should point out that
removing this space is not going to
TRO/CHS9006/DAH
No budget has been made available
for amending the footway in this
area.
Regarding dropping of kerbs, this is
done to permit the construction of
private vehicle accesses and
pedestrian crossings. The budget
for the proposed waiting restrictions
will not stretch to physical
alterations to the highway.
Regarding the parking space outside
No11:
Owing to its width, the eastern side
of The Holdens has double yellow
lines along its length to permit
unobstructed passage to larger
vehicles in forward or reverse gear.
The existing layout already
represents a compromise which
maximises on-street parking, most
notably in the turning head. I agree
that a small vehicle parked carefully
outside No11 poses little difficulty to
the passage of large vehicles (or
access to off-street parking) but, as
you rightly state, the same cannot
be said for any larger vehicle. For
this reason, the highway authority
cannot fulfil its duty to permit the
passage of larger vehicles at all
times.
The Holdens Bosham TRO/CHS9006
Summary of Objections & Responses
improve the turning circle at all (see
next photo).
Photo 4917a shows the whole
scenario, (cars always park on the
left thus there has never been a
turning circle for large vehicles) but
please note this is taken from our
bedroom window and shows my red
car parked next to the extraordinarily
wide pavement (curved to the right)
which seriously impedes the parking in
the close and really leads absolutely
nowhere. If this could be altered, it
would give much more space for us
and the residents in general.
TRO/CHS9006/DAH
APPENDIX B
Regarding the removal of footway:
The footway outside Nos 5 & 6
serves as pedestrian access to the
whole of The Holdens. At its
narrowest point, it appears to meet
the minimum width standard and
where it widens, it does so to
provide a smooth transition to
accommodate a verge further
south. This standard width is
intended to allow pedestrians
(including wheelchair and pushchair
users) to pass each other without
having to step into the carriageway.
The council would not wish to
narrow the footway to below 1.8m
so there is no scope to widen the
carriageway beside No5 or in front
of No6.
There is scope to widen the
carriageway in front of No5 to
overcome the parking problem.
This would involve the realignment
of at least 15m of kerb and any
pipes, cables and ducts buried in
the footway. The scheme promoter
has a budget sufficient for the
Proposed TRO so realigning kerbs
will at the very least double the cost
of the scheme. Cost increases of
this magnitude would need to be
justified to committee members
before proceeding.

Download Report