Report On Car Parking in Lightwater Village Centre + Appendices

C A R PAR KI N G I N
LI G HT WAT ER
V I L LA GE C EN TR E
A REPORT SEEKING IMPROVED CAR

PARKING PROVISION
Circulation: Chairman of the Surrey County Council Local Committee for Surrey
Heath, County Councillor for Lightwater - CCllr Stuart Macleod,
Prepared by Cllr Tim Dodds
Ve r s i o n 1 . 0 – 7 t h J u l y 2 0 0 9
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The preparation of this report would not have been possible with the
financial support of Mike Duffy, proprietor of Budgens in Lightwater, the
author, the Lightwater Business Association, Cllr Stewart Macleod, and past
County Cllr Alan Pierce’s members’ allocation which provided the majority
of the funding for the 2009 Stilwell Partnership’s parking study.
The author also recognises those owners of business premises in

Lightwater village centre who gave freely of their time and advice in the
compilation of this report. It would be remiss of me not to offer generous
thanks to Nick Stilwell and Tony Suter of Stilwell Partnership for their help
and guidance.
CONTENTS
Page 3: INTRODUCTION
Page 4: PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
Page 5: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS
Page 6: POTENTIAL PARKING OPTIONS
Page 8: CONCLUSIONS
Page 9: FINDINGS
Page 16: Appendix A: Map of centre of Lightwater
Page 17: Appendix B: Lightwater waiting restrictions
Page 18: Appendix C: Diagram of echelon parking in The Square
Page 19: Appendix D: Diagram of echelon parking in Guildford Rd
Page 20: Appendix E: Guildford Rd, Highway Initiative Study, 1998
Page 35: Appendix F: Lightwater Village Parking Study, 2009
Report on car parking provision in Lightwater village centre Page 2

CLLR TIM DODDS – 7 T H JULY 2009
INTRODUCTION
The lack of car parking spaces in the village centre of Lightwater has
long been recognised as an issue requiring resolution. There is no public
car park in the village centre.
A highway safety study by Surrey Heath Borough Council, as far back as

1998, also considered the state of car parking provision in the village
centre. While the highway safety improvements were made there were no
improvements in car parking in the village centre.
Objective of the report

The objective of this report, an initiative of Surrey Heath ward councillor
for Lightwater Cllr Tim Dodds, is to meet residents, shoppers, visitors, and
office workers, needs for improved car parking provision. It is the hope of
this report that it provides the impetus to Surrey County Council, and
others, to look again at this issue, and add it to highway/parking
improvement plans in the short term.
The area of Lightwater concerned

The area of Lightwater village centre concerned in this report is the
length of Guildford Road, from its junction with All Saints’ Road to the
junction with Ambleside Road.

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
This report petitions Surrey County Council to urgently:
 Consult with parish and borough authorities and local business

owners on parking needs for Lightwater village centre.
 Develop a highway and car parking strategy for Lightwater village

centre with the key objective of increasing parking spaces.
 Review the effectiveness of existing kerb lines and waiting

restrictions.
 In making proposals for the improvement of car parking consider

improvements to the street scene.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS
The main findings of this report are:
1. Lightwater has no public car park near the village centre.
2. At peak times during the day and at weekends, demand for a car
park space regularly exceeds available spaces, which frequently
leads to instances of inconsiderate and illegal parking.
3. Recently applied parking restrictions [double yellow lines] have

reduced permitted on street parking. [see Appendix B]
4. There remain unresolved parking, pedestrian and highway

safety issues from the last pavement realignment.
5. Off street car parking is available on private property in front of

shops and business premises fronting Guildford Road. None of
these are marked parking bays, [apart from the Budgens car
park at the rear of the store], which leads to inconsiderate
parking.
6. There is daily a displacement of vehicle parking from the village

centre to adjoining streets - along the full length of one side of
All Saints’ Road, at the lower end of Ambleside Road where it
meets Guildford Road, and occasionally in Ullswater Drive.
7. Observations from the recent Stilwell Partnership Lightwater

Village Parking Study show a high turnover of vehicles parking
in Budgens car park and on and off-street parking. [see
Appendix F]

8. Many businesses in Lightwater depend on ‘passing traffic’,
which itself relies on the availability of convenient parking.
Additional marked parking bays in the village centre are likely
to increase the volume of ‘passing traffic’ business.
9. Numerous highway and planning reports have noted the

unsightly scatter of cars, and lack of adequate car parking in the
village centre. [Lightwater Village Design Statement 2007,
Highway Initiative Study 1998, Planning Inspector’s remarks in
planning appeal ruling on 2006/1175, 93-94 Guildford Road in
2008]
10. The reports mentioned in 9 above all recommend further

detailed study on car parking provision, while also
recommending that such an opportunity should be used to make
improvements to the street scene.
11. A lack of footpaths from residential parts of the village

creates a reliance on car journeys to access the village centre
shops.[Lightwater Village Design Statement 6.1.d]
12. Public consultation for the Lightwater Village Design

Statement found the majority of respondents thought that the
shops and buildings in the village centre are unattractive and
soulless. [Lightwater Village Design Statement 5.5]
13. While landlords of premises with frontages onto Guildford

Road in the village centre are generally unwilling to fund the
entire costs of improving car parking, many are prepared to
offer match funding to highway funds.
14. It is government policy, through its paper on Sustainable

Communities in the South East: Building for the future to seek
to create sustainable communities that are economically
prosperous, and enjoy a well-designed, accessible and pleasant
living and working environment.

POTENTIAL PARKING OPTIONS
A number of potential options to increase parking spaces, improve

highway and pedestrian safety, and improve the street scene in the village
centre have been identified in the Stilwell Partnership’s report – Lightwater
Village Parking Study. In addition a number of viable options are suggested
by the author:
1. Stilwell Study option 1: Do nothing
This option was rejected by the Stilwell Study, concluding that the
need for additional car parking is undeniable.
2. Stilwell Study option 2: Minor low cost changes
The Stilwell Study identified a number of low cost alterations to

parking provision. These are:
 Improve parking discipline by marking out parking bays
 Negotiate with local offices to permit public parking on

Saturdays and Sundays.
 Negotiate with the landlords and residents of flats in Denly

Way to replace fixed barriers separating their parking area
from Budgens car park with retractable bollards. Thus
enabling use of part of their parking area as a daytime
shopper’s car park.
 Erect signage in the village centre directing people to long

term car parking, in the car park behind All Saints’ Church in
Broadway Road.
3. Stilwell Study option 3: Significant changes to parking and

village scene
The Stilwell Study considered a number of major changes to the

centre of Lightwater, such as:
 Removal of public footways, where there’s an alternative

footway in front of the shops, to provide easier parking
access and to increase parking bays.
 Introducing one-way traffic through Guildford Road in the

centre of Lightwater by diverting, either northbound or
southbound, traffic along All Saints’ Road and Broadway
Road.

4. Option 4: Additional echelon parking in The Square
On entering the road leading to Budgens car park, there are, on

the left, three marked parking bays. Extending the number of bays
along this road could create six additional bays, perhaps even
seven bays. See diagram in Appendix C
5. Option 5: Echelon parking in front of 37 and 39 Guildford

Road
As described elsewhere, vehicles often park inconsiderately in

front of 37 Guildford Road, and less intrusively outside number 39.
Creating echelon parking bays in front of these properties would
increase the number of approved parking spaces, be safer for
pedestrians, and improve the street scene. See diagram in
Appendix D.

CONCLUSIONS
The report concludes that:
1. There is a proven need to improve and increase the provision for

motor vehicle parking in Lightwater village centre.
2. Shop and business frontages to Guildford Road are held by many

landlords. This seems to have provided a convenient excuse not to
take action to resolve the inadequate car parking provision.
3. Meeting the need for ‘quick-turnaround’ parking spaces in the

village centre will support the commercial vibrancy of Lightwater,
and make for a safer and pleasanter experience for visitors, and
shoppers.
4. In the planning and designing for additional car parking there is an

opportunity to enhance the visual appeal of the village centre, and
renew its somewhat tired and dated look.
5. Many of the business owners with frontages onto Guildford Road

are prepared to assist in funding to any Council inspired actions.
6. In the devolved local transport plans and local allocations,

published in February 2009, traffic management in Lightwater is
identified as one of the priority projects.
7. In the longer term efforts should be made to identify property in or

near the village centre for a public car park. The benefit of which
would be to attract tourist and visitor traffic to the village, with all
the revenue and impetus that this would bring.

FINDINGS
These are the detail findings on: independent comments on car parking
in Lightwater: pictorial evidence of instances of inappropriate parking on
pavements; and comments from landlords and business owners
1. Independent comments on car parking in Lightwater
 Lightwater Village Design Statement Supplementary Planning

Document, October 2007 contains important comments and
planning design principles on the impact of vehicle parking in the
village:
On road parking is a problem in the centre of the Village:

attractive grass verges are eroded through use of parking: and
views of the heart of the Village Centre around the commercial
centre are dominated by an unsightly scatter of parked cars [5.6,
p17]
The redevelopment or improvement of the commercial centre of

the village should provide a more defined structure for the layout
of buildings and car parking which will substantially increase the
amount of landscaping and reduce the impact of car parking on
the street scene [Built Environment Design Principle B6, p18]
42% of the questionnaire respondents commented on the poor car

parking in the Village
Centre. There is increased reliance on car journeys into the
Village centre from the residential parts of the village that puts
pressure on the local road network and car parking in the Village.
This, together with the intensification of development in the
Village centre has placed great pressure on the provision of car
parking spaces available to shoppers. [6.1.c, p21]
A Study is encouraged which will examine the level and location of

public car parking in the Village, the need for parking, and
identify potential car parking areas, and mechanisms to achieve
parking solutions” [Transportation and Access Further Initiatives.
[Initiative H9, p22]
 A Planning Inspector’s judgement in relation to 93-94

Guildford Road, 2006/1175 [Appeal Ref:
APP/D3640/A/08/2068481/NWF], July 2008 contained these
comments on the character of the village centre and car parking:
The other major part of the village centre is its commercial area
…. Some of the development in this area has a rather harsh

appearance and a prevalence of frontage car parking is especially
unattractive.
There is also a substantial amount of hard surfacing and car

parking on adjoining sites, and on other sites in the village centre.
However, this is an unattractive feature of the village. The recently
adopted Lightwater Village Design Statement Supplementary
Planning Document, to which substantial weight may be attached,
seeks to reduce the influence of car parking on the street scene.
 Contained in the Guildford Road, Highway Initiative Study,

Surrey Heath Borough Council, 1998 are the following
recommendations: [See Appendix E]
… it would be difficult to embark upon long-winded consultation

and design elaborate measures for the areas of multiple ownership
within the lay-bys in front of the parades of shops. However, it is
possible to break down the possibilities into packages that, for
funding and timing reasons, can stand alone and still be good
value for money and effective in Guildford Road. [Options for
Improvement, 6.4, p10]
Longer term proposals could attempt to reorganise parking

adjacent to the parades of shops, provide higher quality paving
materials and even introduce central islands in the main
carriageway with landscaping, statues and the like. However, this
would require kerb line and access changes that could only be
achieved after further detailed discussion with other interested
parties. [Conclusions & Recommendations, 7.3, p12]
 The Stilwell Partnership’s Lightwater Village Parking Study,

January 2009 includes the following recommendations: [See
Appendix F]
Better parking discipline can be achieved when the parking bays

are marked on the surface.
Currently, it is not unusual to see only two vehicles occupying the
space of three, where such markings are not provided. [3.7, p10]
From informal discussions with shop keepers, it is believed that

over regulation and restriction, whether statutory or voluntarily
engineered, relating to parking may have an adverse affect and
drive potential customers away to other accessible local areas
where parking is more plentiful. [3.14, p11]
Report on car parking provision in Lightwater village centre Page

10
2. Pictorial evidence of inappropriate parking
 Instances of parking on pavement on south side of Guildford Road

outside Cook Shop and Carsons Estate Agency

11
 Instances of parking on pavement on road leading to Budgens car
park

12
3. Comments from landlords and business owners
Guildford Road –
South side
No. Premises Comments
37 Vickery Estate Landlord looking to improve

& Agents & frontage. Potential for echelon
38 Cook shop parking for three parking spaces,
landlord in agreement
39 Carsons Landlord has in the recent past

& Estate Agency resurfaced the frontage. Potential
40 for echelon parking for two
vehicles, possibly more with
changes to the road table.
Guildford Road – North
side
41 Lightwater Not spoken with landlord.
Opticians Shopkeeper regularly suffers from
inconsiderate parking in front of
premises.
43 Boots the Not spoken with landlord.

Chemist
No.
3 Premises
The Square: Comments
Not spoken with landlords. None of
to these premises provide customer
48 Barclays
Donald’s Notparking.
spoken with owner. Frontage
7 car
Bank, Coral’s
Pharmacy provides car parking spaces for up
Bookmakers, to four vehicles
Ladies and
54 Gents hair
Lightwater Owner agrees with need for
salons
Newsagent additional parking. Frontage
provides three parking spaces.
2 The Square: Customer car park at rear for 24
56 Chinese Take- vehicles.
Budgens Not spoken Owner
with looking to Frontage
landlord. improve
away frontage.
space for Potential additional
two vehicles.
Supermarket
restaurant echelon parking for at least six
vehicles on road leading to car
58 Unique Car park. Also, with
Not spoken withagreement of Denly
landlord. Frontage
Sound & Way
spacelandlords and tenants, for day
for two vehicles.
Security time parking for up to sixteen
vehicles.
62 Vacant Not spoken with landlord
1 The Square Landlord involved in original
development of village centre,
Shaw
agreement to need for parking
Associates &
strategy review and need for
64 vacant
Papa John’s Not spoken with landlord. Frontage
additional parking.
premises
Pizza space for two vehicles.
61 Offices, Dry Not spoken to any of the landlords.

to Cleaner, Fish Frontages already have echelon
13
CLLR TIM 70 &– Chip Shop,
7George 2009 parking
Owner agrees with need for
83
DODDS TH
JULY
Jewellers,
Arthur additional parking. Frontage has
Insurance
Butcher space for two vehicles.
Agent
APPENDICES
The appendices of this report are:
A. Map of the centre of Lightwater concerning this report
B. Lightwater Waiting Restrictions, Surrey County Council, 2008
C. Diagram of echelon parking in The Square
D. Diagram of echelon parking at 37 & 39 Guildford Road
E. Guildford Road, Lightwater – Surrey Heath Borough Council

Highway Initiative Report, February 1998 [Less pictures and
tables]
F. Lightwater Village Parking Study, The Stilwell Partnership, January

2009

14
15
16
17
18
APPENDIX E
David Thomson BSc, DIS, CEng, MICE

Director of Environmental and Technical Services
GUILDFORD ROAD, LIGHTWATER
HIGHWAY INITIATIVE STUDY
February 1998
Report prepared by
19
Stilwell Bell Safety, Traffic & Highway Engineering Partnership
Dorna House, 50 Guildford Road, West End, Surrey. GU24 9PW Tel: 01276 700400

20
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 STUDY LENGTH DESCRIPTION
3.0 EXISTING ROAD SAFETY & TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
4.0 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS
5.0 CONSULTATION BACKGROUND, DATA & DISCUSSION
6.0 OPTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT
7.0 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The investigation and public exhibition have been

commissioned by Surrey Heath Borough Council as part of
the Borough's Highway Initiative Programme. This report
format has been devised on the basis that it contains
sufficient information to be a technically based document
but should, nevertheless, be easily understood by a wide
range of interested parties. The technical information is
presented in summary form. The report outlines the stages
undertaken as part of the study and, where necessary,
recommends the promotion of appropriate highway
improvements to enhance the safety of road users.
Comments received during the study play a large part in the
subsequent discussions and outcome.
1.2 The purpose of this study is to investigate the perceived and

previously identified road safety problems along the C5
Guildford Road, Lightwater that could not be addressed
during the Accident Working Group investigation. The study
length originally comprised the length of Guildford Road
between Ambleside Road and the Post Office. However, as
the investigation progressed it was decided to increase the
area to include the lengths of All Saints’ Road and Broadway
Road that form the triangle. Figure 1 overleaf shows the
revised Study Area.
1.3 The starting point in any study of this nature is the

consideration of the personal injury accident record, traffic
speeds and flows and the character of the roads involved.
1.4 Following this basic assessment and discussions on a team

basis with Local Borough and Parish Councillors the format
of the main investigation and consultations was agreed with
a view to a Public Exhibition being held in July 1997.
1.5 It was agreed at the team meetings that the main

investigation would include an assessment of conditions for
pedestrians, the amount and availability of car parking and
road safety in general in the identified length of Guildford
Road. In addition, it would be necessary to undertake
observations and traffic surveys in All Saints’ Road and
Broadway Road as proposed changes in traffic facilities in
Guildford Road may affect these roads.
1.6 This study is able to build on the work carried out by the
Accident Working Group (AWG) which comprises Officers
from the Borough Council and County Council, and
representatives of the Surrey Police. The AWG investigation
Report on car parking provision in Lightwater village centre

Page 22
is intended to be a low cost investigation and remedial
measure exercise designed to reduce the number of
casualties where measures can be identified, and
implemented for less than £15,000.
1.7 The AWG investigation included the entire length of

Guildford Road from by-pass junction to by-pass junction,
however it was clear that, whilst some junction problems
could be addressed, the central area was a complex problem
involving a longer period of observation, numerous traffic
and parking surveys and there was no quick or easy solution
to the pedestrian problems. Major problems to be overcome
include the spread out pattern of pedestrian desire lines
observed and the numerous existing dropped crossing or
access points that have been established to serve the
businesses, shopping parades, etc.
Figure 1 - The Study Area Boundary
2.0 STUDY LENGTH DESCRIPTION
2.1 Guildford Road, Lightwater is the C5; a Surrey County

Council classified road, and local distributor. For the
purposes of traffic assessment the driver attitude and speed
& volume of vehicles has been considered over a length
greater than that of the Study Area. This is due to the
relatively fast, rural, sweeping bends and undulating
character of the road approaching from the east and the
sometimes aggressive and over confident nature of the
driving observed as vehicles approach from the western end
of the village. The latter behaviour may, in part, be due to
drivers leaving the high speed A322 and M3 roads at the
nearby junctions and not adjusting quickly enough to the
change in environment.
2.2 The central area study length, as shown in Figure 1, is

subject to a 30 m.p.h. speed limit and this section of
Guildford Road bisects the main shopping area. There is a
good mix of shop types to attract and retain the local
residential community, however the highway infrastructure
facilities have not kept pace with the growing residential
development in the area. This is partly because the
expectations and requirements of planning guidance have
changed greatly in recent years and could not be applied at

Page 23
the time local residential development was being considered
for approval. This has led to situations like the obvious
difficulties encountered by vulnerable groups of road users,
such as the elderly and children, when crossing the
Guildford Road.
2.3 Car parking along this length is of a random, disorganised

nature in the areas directly outside the shopping parades,
the main carriageway being a mix of restricted and
unrestricted areas. There is an area of parking to the rear
of The Square, which is accessed by a narrow access road,
which is frequently subject to parking for its entire length on
the southern side.
2.4 Carriageway widths along Guildford Road vary, but in the

central area are in excess of eight metres wide. Footways
exist on both sides of the road but there are no central
islands or other formal crossing features to assist
pedestrians.
2.5 An important feature, especially for pedestrians, is that the

Post Office is not in the main shopping area. In addition,
parking for the Post Office is restricted to that available on-
street.
3.0 EXISTING ROAD SAFETY & TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
3.1 During the period 1st January 1993 to 31st May 1997 nine
personal injury accidents occurred in the study area. An
accident analysis has been undertaken, the details of which are
explained in Section 4 of this report.
3.2 Guildford Road has, over a number of years, achieved a strategic

importance greater than that intended when the by-pass was
constructed. It provides a link from Red Road to the A322
(north) and the M3 via the residential roads of McDonald Road
and Ambleside Road. In addition, a significant volume of traffic
uses Lightwater Road, Guildford Road and Broadway Road to
travel the rural routes through Windlesham village and beyond.
These routes provide a perceived reduction in journey time which
would otherwise be encountered on the Red Road / A322 By-pass
or the Red Road / A319 route via Chobham.
3.3 Road safety conditions were improved in 1996 by the

implementation of AWG measures. In particular, the mini-
roundabout introduced at the Guildford Road junction with
Lightwater Road has had a significant speed reducing effect on

Page 24
the north-west bound approach to the village. The speed and
volume data for this and other locations is illustrated in the
report section dealing with the exhibition. An extract for the area
near The Square is shown on the left to illustrate existing
“typical speeds”. It can be seen that the majority of motorists
drive at or below the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. The figures are 79%
for travel towards Bagshot and 82% towards West End.
However, the actual numbers of motorists exceeding the 30
m.p.h. limit are still significant in an area where it may be
appropriate, under certain conditions, to drive well below the 30
m.p.h. speed limit. The 24 hour data has been captured using
automatic traffic counters but observation and hand held radar
confirm the picture and the fact that the higher speed vehicles
combined with the difficulty in judging opposing gaps in traffic
flow exacerbate the crossing problems for pedestrians.
Figure 2 – Extract From Exhibition Data “Typical Speeds” at The

Square
3.4 The main areas of difficulty in road safety terms are contained
within the boundary shown in Figure 1. However, the approach
speeds and driver attitude, particularly south-east bound from
the M3/A322 towards the village near the Post Office, give cause
for concern.
3.5 With regard to the central area, the main points suggested
for further consideration prior to any form of public
consultation were:

Page 25
a) Pedestrians have considerable difficulty in crossing
between the shopping facilities. Can the central area
be made more pedestrian friendly ?
b) Parking arrangements are not good in terms of use of
space, blocked sightlines and access to spaces. The
overall capacity and demand for parking needs to be
established if modifications to the existing
arrangements are to be considered.
c) Consider the speed of vehicles in relation to the
character of the road, road uses and vulnerable road
users.
d) Land ownerships are known to be complicated,
especially in the parking areas adjacent to the shopping
parades. Attitudes and self-help may play an important
role.
e) Any improvements suggested may be welcomed by
some but may not be considered an improvement by
others. The correct balance of consultation is very
difficult to achieve but is the key to a successful
scheme.
4.0 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS
4.1 Nine personal injury accidents occurred within the study

area boundary shown in Figure 1 during the period 1 st
January 1993 to 31st May 1997.
4.2 One of the nine incidents involved a pedestrian in conflict

with a vehicle. The pedestrian was six years old and chasing
a dog which ran into the road.
4.3 One of the nine incidents involved a motorcyclist, one

involved a pedal cyclist and another involved a light goods
vehicle. The remaining incidents were car related.
4.4 Four of the nine incidents occurred when vehicles struck

either a parked vehicle or a street light. Of these incidents,
one of the drivers had a physical/mental illness, one driver
fell asleep, one lost concentration and a fourth tried to
overtake whilst vision was obscured.
4.5 Five of the incidents happened in wet conditions and one

involved the hours of darkness.
4.6 The incidents are individual sites rather than in clusters.

Page 26
4.7 The summary table below details the personal injury
accident record during the study period.
Ta b l e 1 – S u m m a r y O f Pe r s o n a l I n j u r y A c c i d e n t s & C a s u a l t i e s
YEAR NO. OF CASUALTIES

ACCIDENTS
1993 4 4
1994 1 1
1995 0 0
1996 3 3
To end 1 1
05/1997
TOTAL 9 ACCIDENTS 9 CASUALTIES
4.8 Outside the study area, at the junction of Guildford Road and
Lightwater Road, a cluster of four personal injury accidents
occurred within the study period. These were treated as
part of the AWG scheme and will be monitored as a separate
scheme.

Page 27
5.0 CONSULTATION BACKGROUND, DATA & DISCUSSION
5.1 The basis of a good traffic management public exhibition is a

thorough understanding of the existing traffic conditions on
the local highway network. This includes items such as
observation, surveys of vehicles and pedestrians, parking
surveys, etc. but can also involve the preparation of concept
drawings and the presentation of the background data. It
was agreed that this study would concentrate on the
pedestrian difficulties, speed of vehicles and parking
problems.
5.2 Pedestrians encounter a number of difficulties when

attempting to cross Guildford Road. These include having to
cross the whole road in one attempt combined with finding
gaps in two way traffic that usually has a clear run between
the mini-roundabout at Lightwater Road and the northern
junction of Guildford Road and the By-pass. The area given
priority under this assessment is between the Post Office
and Lightwater Road. The main locations where pedestrians
cross were determined by check counts and observation.
These locations are shown below in an extract reduced from
the exhibition panel.
Figure 3 – Extract From Exhibition Pedestrian Data
5.3 It can be seen, from Figure 3, that there are many desire
lines for pedestrians crossing Guildford Road. A major
factor is the location of the various facilities. The Post Office
generates trips away from the central shopping area and
people cross the road where they feel most comfortable. A
typical visit to the shopping area may include visits for
newspapers, stationery, household products and food. It is
possible to observe the walking patterns of such shoppers
and the routes involved. In some cases the routes involve
diagonal patterns and multiple trips across Guildford Road
at various locations along the study length. We believe that
this is to be encouraged as shoppers meet and socialise
along the routes, have access to their favourite or preferred
shops and the process contributes generally towards a
viable and attractive village centre atmosphere.

Page 28
5.4 The exhibition posed the question “What tools can be used
to help?” and gave some examples. An extract from the
exhibition is shown below as Figure 4.
Figure 4 – Extract From Exhibition Panel Showing Some Ideas To

Assist Pedestrians
5.5 The degree of difficulty faced by pedestrians crossing a road

can be assessed using a tried and tested formula. It gives an
indication, for a typical road, of whether or not a pelican
crossing, zebra crossing or pedestrian refuge (sometimes
referred to as an island) is appropriate. It is also important
to bear in mind that in some cases it has been shown
statistically that the introduction of a pelican crossing may
introduce personal injury accidents where no record
currently exists.
5.6 The assessment for The Square area is shown below as Table
2. It is broken down into time period, number of
pedestrians, number of vehicles, pedestrian and vehicle total
columns and the calculation of the PV2 formula.
Table 2 – Results Of A Pedestrian & Vehicle Survey
5.7 It can be seen from Table 2 that the average of the four
busiest hours gives a result that is only 14% of the required
numerical criterion. Under these circumstances a pelican
crossing may introduce more problems than it solves. The
possible introduction of personal injury accidents should not
be taken lightly. Some people hold the view that the
provision of a pelican crossing will solve the pedestrian
problems. Local experience at sites in and around Frimley
does not support this view. For example, at the pelican
crossing adjacent to Frimley Park Hospital it has been
necessary to erect road safety notices reminding pedestrians
to press the button and wait. The personal injury accident
rate at that site includes seven pedestrians injured at the
crossing location in a four-year period. At another pelican
site on the Frimley Green Road the personal injury accident
record includes a history of incidents which are common at

Page 29
pelican crossings. This type of incident involves crossing the
road within the zigzag area and not being aware of the
vehicle approaching from behind.
5.8 In addition to the numerical consideration and the possibility

of introducing personal injury accidents it is also necessary
to think in a practical way with regard to where a proposed
crossing could be sited. Examples of siting considerations
include:
a) To provide adequate room for any vehicles emerging

from side roads towards the crossing so that the
drivers of vehicles making such a manoeuvre are
concentrating on the crossing point and any
pedestrians using it.
b) The pelican crossing street furniture including the

signal heads, poles, controller cabinet, zigzag
markings and detection equipment, require a large
area of unobstructed carriageway and footway.
5.9 Similar points arise when considering the suitability and siting
of any proposed pedestrian refuges. It is necessary to
consider the problems, and solutions, from many angles and
viewpoints.
5.10 There are many obstacles in the way of positioning even the
simplest form of pedestrian refuge. An adequate refuge for
pedestrians, in road safety terms, requires a standing area
of two metres by two metres. In addition, the standing area
must be protected by kerbs and bollards.
5.11 Any pedestrian facility must be positioned where

pedestrians will use it sensibly. Pedestrians and motorists
are notoriously lazy in taking the shortest possible route
even to the extent of ignoring obvious dangers. It is well
known, and can be observed in many high street locations,
that most pedestrians will not walk even ten metres to a
facility if it involves walking another ten metres back to their
desired location. Unfortunately, this even applies to parents
accompanying small children on foot and motorists parking
vehicles on the pavement or yellow line instead of driving
short distances to a parking area.

Page 30
5.12 Access and egress at premises is important for a variety of
reasons. Many potential locations for pedestrian refuges
either block the turning of vehicles requiring legitimate
access, e.g. delivery vehicles; or are not wide enough to
build a safe and convenient refuge. Lightwater is
unfortunate in that the pattern of development in the
shopping area has led to numerous individual access points
using dropped kerbs combined with many kerbed islands
forming access roads to shopping parades or the car park.
5.13 Figure 5 below is an extract from the exhibition material

that shows some of the possible pedestrian refuge sites
considered, along with brief notes of difficulties or
requirements.
Figure 5 – Extract From Exhibition Panel Showing Some
Pedestrian Refuge Sites Considered
5.14 Clearly, there is a case for providing some assistance for

pedestrians. However, the traditional methods are not
possible without great difficulty, changing the physical
layout of kerblines, removing some on-street parking or
rearranging the multiple ownership parking areas in front of
the shopping parades. Many assume that the parking areas
in front of the shopping parades are public highway but the
situation is, unfortunately, not that simple. In some cases
the difficulties involve all of these features
.
5.15 There are no measures needed specifically to treat motor
vehicle incidents. However, the area of The Square and the
approaches would be improved greatly for many road users
by measures designed to slow motor vehicles. The effect of
on-street parking in terms of a speed reducing device is well
known to Police and Engineers. The removal of all main
road parking is likely to lead to higher vehicle speeds and a
possible reduction in passing trade for items such as
newspapers, etc. An on-street parking restriction review is
being undertaken in the study area with a view to clearing
sight lines and enhancing road safety but minimising the
spaces lost.

Page 31
5.16 Car parking off the publicly maintained highway could be
revised with a view to creating a more ordered system,
especially in front of the shopping parades. This is a longer
term task involving the co-operation of many owners and
interests and is likely to hold back progress on schemes that
could be built entirely within the highway maintained at
public expense.
5.17 Feedback from the exhibitions has been very encouraging.

During the discussions over the two exhibition periods the
Borough representatives agreed that the degree of interest
shown by visitors and the time spent by them in meaningful
and important discussion with the staff was reflected in the
high quality, well thought out responses given in the
comments forms. The comment forms are an important part
of the exhibition process and, as expected, reflected a cross
section of opinion and interests. Nevertheless, the “village
attitude” came across in many comments and considerable
time has been spent analysing and considering the points
put forward and the views expressed.
5.18 One particular viewpoint expressed by many visitors during

discussions, and one that we strongly support, is that any
measures implemented should fit in with the village
atmosphere and be as “non-urban” looking as possible.
However, the problems associated with speed are difficult to
treat successfully without the traditional, closely spaced,
vertical traffic calming, i.e. road humps or the like.
5.19 Traffic calming can be softened by the use of planting and

other landscaping features but such measures inevitably
increase the cost of any scheme and it’s future maintenance.
It is important to bear in mind that there is not enough
money available to treat all the sites being considered and
any proposals here must compete for funding either on a
Borough-wide or County-wide basis.

Page 32
6.0 OPTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT
6.1 Any proposals suggested in this section of the report should

have specific aims rather than simply reflect a “wish list”.
With this in mind it would be reasonable to consider
measures which:
a) Seek to reduce casualties and damage only

accidents
b) improve the information given to a variety of road

user types by highlighting potential problems e.g.
junctions and crossing points
c) aim to enhance the quality of village life by

encouraging the use of the shopping areas and
Post Office by lowering vehicle speeds and
assisting pedestrians to cross Guildford Road
6.2 The Options & Ideas shown at the exhibition demonstrated

that a range of schemes were possible and invited thought
and comment on those shown or on a mix and match basis.
6.3 The majority of those who expressed an opinion during

discussions and in comments forms were worried in relation
to the speed of vehicles through the central area and the
difficulty of crossing the road. Without doubt, any options
that achieve lower speeds and assist crossing should be
popular but high on the priorities in most visitors’ minds was
the ability to “do something now”.
6.4 With these points in mind it would be difficult to embark

upon long-winded consultation and design elaborate
measures for the areas of multiple ownership within the lay-
bys in front of the parades of shops. However, it is possible
to break down the possibilities into packages that, for
funding and timing reasons, can stand alone and still be
good value for money and effective in Guildford Road.
6.5 Numerous people expressed their view that vehicles

approach the central area too fast thereby giving problems
at the junctions and for pedestrians trying to cross the road.
This can be supported by the observations, measurements
by radar and data from the automatic survey equipment.
The recently installed mini-roundabout at Lightwater Road
also received favourable comment with regard to it
achieving noticeable speed reduction.

Page 33
6.6 Simple, cost-effective proposals have been developed and
are shown on the Proposals 1 and Proposals 2 drawings
included in the data annex to this report. For ease of
reference extracts are shown in this report as Figure 6 and
Figure 7 along with a brief comment on each.
6.7 Figure 6 below shows a mini-roundabout at the junction of

Guildford Road and All Saints Road to act as a speed
reducing feature on the approach to the central area. It
would be necessary to “close” (except to emergency
vehicles) the adjacent slip road with non-emergency vehicles
then entering and leaving from the other end. This would
improve road safety at a site where some motorists
negotiate the slip road at speed. A pedestrian refuge can
also be designed adjacent to this proposed “closure” and it
is felt that such a provision will be of great assistance for
pedestrians going from The Square to the Post Office in
addition to it being a further speed reducing feature. The
road table shown can be constructed providing it is done in
conjunction with the other road tab
Figure 6 – Extract From Proposals 1 Drawing
6.8 Figure 7 shows the introduction of a double mini-roundabout

at the junctions of Ambleside Road and Broadway Road with
Guildford Road. This will primarily act as a speed-reducing
feature for the central area but also assist road users exiting
Ambleside Road and Broadway Road. The lack of delays
currently experienced when using these junctions indicates
that putting mini-roundabouts at these locations should not
attract further vehicles due to the change in priorities. The
road table shown can only be introduced along with the road
table shown on Proposals 1 drawing and the speed reducing
mini-roundabouts.le and mini-roundabouts shown on the
Proposals 2 drawing.

Page 34
Figure 7 – Extract From Proposals 2 Drawing

Page 35
7.0 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 We recommend the following items of remedial action in the

short term:
a) Draw up proposals to restrict parking in order to

protect the sight line to the right when exiting the
access road to the car park behind The Square.
b) Draw up proposals to restrict some parking at the

Guildford Road end of Ambleside Road with a view to
improving road safety.
c) Implement a scheme of three mini-roundabouts as

shown on Proposals 1 and Proposals 2 drawings in the
data annex to this report. This is with a view to them
acting as speed reducing features for the central area
in addition to addressing sight line and speed
difficulties when exiting Ambleside Road.
d) A bolt on option to these proposals would be the

installation of the two road tables to provide and
maintain further speed reduction and enhanced
opportunities for pedestrians to cross.
e) Discussions could be held with the Post Master with a

view to securing a letter box on the Windlesham side of
Guildford Road near the junction with Broadway Road.
This would assist the residents on that side of the road.
7.2 A ball-park estimate for the proposals suggested in a) to e)

above is in the region of £35,000 to £37,000.
7.3 Longer term proposals could attempt to reorganise parking

adjacent to the parades of shops, provide higher quality
paving materials and even introduce central islands in the
main carriageway with landscaping, statues and the like.
However, this would require kerbline and access changes
that could only be achieved after further detailed discussion
with other interested parties.

Page 36

Report On Car Parking in Lightwater Village Centre + Appendices

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Report On Car Parking in Lightwater Village Centre + Appendices

Uploaded by

Copyright:

C A R PAR KI N G I N

A REPORT SEEKING IMPROVED CAR

Prepared by Cllr Tim Dodds

The author also recognises those owners of business premises in

Report on car parking provision in Lightwater village centre Page 2

A highway safety study by Surrey Heath Borough Council, as far back as

Objective of the report

The area of Lightwater concerned

Report on car parking provision in Lightwater village centre Page 3

This report petitions Surrey County Council to urgently:

 Consult with parish and borough authorities and local business

 Develop a highway and car parking strategy for Lightwater village

 Review the effectiveness of existing kerb lines and waiting

 In making proposals for the improvement of car parking consider

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS

The main findings of this report are:

1. Lightwater has no public car park near the village centre.

3. Recently applied parking restrictions [double yellow lines] have

4. There remain unresolved parking, pedestrian and highway

5. Off street car parking is available on private property in front of

6. There is daily a displacement of vehicle parking from the village

7. Observations from the recent Stilwell Partnership Lightwater

Report on car parking provision in Lightwater village centre Page 4

9. Numerous highway and planning reports have noted the

10. The reports mentioned in 9 above all recommend further

11. A lack of footpaths from residential parts of the village

12. Public consultation for the Lightwater Village Design

13. While landlords of premises with frontages onto Guildford

14. It is government policy, through its paper on Sustainable

Report on car parking provision in Lightwater village centre Page 5

A number of potential options to increase parking spaces, improve

1. Stilwell Study option 1: Do nothing

2. Stilwell Study option 2: Minor low cost changes

The Stilwell Study identified a number of low cost alterations to

 Improve parking discipline by marking out parking bays

 Negotiate with local offices to permit public parking on

 Negotiate with the landlords and residents of flats in Denly

 Erect signage in the village centre directing people to long

3. Stilwell Study option 3: Significant changes to parking and

The Stilwell Study considered a number of major changes to the

 Removal of public footways, where there’s an alternative

 Introducing one-way traffic through Guildford Road in the

Report on car parking provision in Lightwater village centre Page 6

On entering the road leading to Budgens car park, there are, on

5. Option 5: Echelon parking in front of 37 and 39 Guildford

As described elsewhere, vehicles often park inconsiderately in

Report on car parking provision in Lightwater village centre Page 7

The report concludes that:

1. There is a proven need to improve and increase the provision for

2. Shop and business frontages to Guildford Road are held by many

3. Meeting the need for ‘quick-turnaround’ parking spaces in the

4. In the planning and designing for additional car parking there is an

5. Many of the business owners with frontages onto Guildford Road

6. In the devolved local transport plans and local allocations,

7. In the longer term efforts should be made to identify property in or

Report on car parking provision in Lightwater village centre Page 8

1. Independent comments on car parking in Lightwater

 Lightwater Village Design Statement Supplementary Planning

On road parking is a problem in the centre of the Village:

The redevelopment or improvement of the commercial centre of

42% of the questionnaire respondents commented on the poor car

A Study is encouraged which will examine the level and location of

 A Planning Inspector’s judgement in relation to 93-94

Report on car parking provision in Lightwater village centre Page 9

There is also a substantial amount of hard surfacing and car

 Contained in the Guildford Road, Highway Initiative Study,