Car Park Responses
(Page Updated October 28th)
1. Background
As part of its agenda on 14th September, Bristol City Council’s newly formed Transport and Connectivity Policy Committee (TCC) considered a proposal to introduce charges for ten of its suburban car parks, all currently free to use. A similar proposal, by the previous ‘Mayor and Cabinet’ administration in Spring 2023, had been withdrawn as part of a cross-party deal to approve the budget. The TCC is one of the new Committees that replaced the Mayoral system earlier this year, with nine Councillor members, four from the Greens, the overall ruling party, and five from a mix of other parties. While most of the proposals on its September agenda were approved, that to introduce car park charging was defeated by 5 to 4, with all the non-Green members voting against. After the vote, the minutes noted that Council Officers would now consider how the resulting deficit in the planned transport budget could be made good, and return to the Committee at a later stage with appropriate proposals.
The minutes of the meeting are now available here.
Members of the public, and other Councillors not on the Committee, were also invited to submit ‘Public Forum Statements’ on its agenda items prior to the meeting. Despite the short notice provided, in total 67 were received, as available on the Council website here.
Of these, a remarkable number, 52, were directed to the specific charging proposal for Westbury Hill, so just one part of one item on its agenda. One was in favour and the others all opposed the proposal.
This is a short analysis of the content of these ‘opposed’ Statements, primarily to identify the reasons stressed by those submitting them. This is helpful both to gauge the ways in which this large and very central local car park is viewed by those living in and visiting the Village for its various goods and services, and other reasons, and also to see if any lessons could be learnt should this proposal arise for a third time, and public comment again be invited on it.
2. Some analysis
The 52 opposed statements were classified in terms of themes as shown below, some based on specific activities motivating car park users (shopping, doctor’s appointments…), some on named sites (the Village Hall, the Methodist Church…) some on important but intangible qualitative considerations (furthering a sense of local community, hosting social activities…). In addition, a separate note was made of those making mention of the elderly demographic of local residents, pertinent to, for instance, their valuing social activities to combat loneliness or their heightened need to visit a local doctors’ surgery, and by car due to limited personal mobility. Any such classification is inevitably subjective, based on my ‘read’ of the Statements, but hopefully it is sufficient to portray the texture of the arguments advanced without an excessive welter of detail, such as the specific social activities hosted by the Churches or particularly valued named shops, which feature in some of the Statements.
As part of its agenda on 14th September, Bristol City Council’s newly formed Transport and Connectivity Policy Committee (TCC) considered a proposal to introduce charges for ten of its suburban car parks, all currently free to use. A similar proposal, by the previous ‘Mayor and Cabinet’ administration in Spring 2023, had been withdrawn as part of a cross-party deal to approve the budget. The TCC is one of the new Committees that replaced the Mayoral system earlier this year, with nine Councillor members, four from the Greens, the overall ruling party, and five from a mix of other parties. While most of the proposals on its September agenda were approved, that to introduce car park charging was defeated by 5 to 4, with all the non-Green members voting against. After the vote, the minutes noted that Council Officers would now consider how the resulting deficit in the planned transport budget could be made good, and return to the Committee at a later stage with appropriate proposals.
The minutes of the meeting are now available here.
Members of the public, and other Councillors not on the Committee, were also invited to submit ‘Public Forum Statements’ on its agenda items prior to the meeting. Despite the short notice provided, in total 67 were received, as available on the Council website here.
Of these, a remarkable number, 52, were directed to the specific charging proposal for Westbury Hill, so just one part of one item on its agenda. One was in favour and the others all opposed the proposal.
This is a short analysis of the content of these ‘opposed’ Statements, primarily to identify the reasons stressed by those submitting them. This is helpful both to gauge the ways in which this large and very central local car park is viewed by those living in and visiting the Village for its various goods and services, and other reasons, and also to see if any lessons could be learnt should this proposal arise for a third time, and public comment again be invited on it.
2. Some analysis
The 52 opposed statements were classified in terms of themes as shown below, some based on specific activities motivating car park users (shopping, doctor’s appointments…), some on named sites (the Village Hall, the Methodist Church…) some on important but intangible qualitative considerations (furthering a sense of local community, hosting social activities…). In addition, a separate note was made of those making mention of the elderly demographic of local residents, pertinent to, for instance, their valuing social activities to combat loneliness or their heightened need to visit a local doctors’ surgery, and by car due to limited personal mobility. Any such classification is inevitably subjective, based on my ‘read’ of the Statements, but hopefully it is sufficient to portray the texture of the arguments advanced without an excessive welter of detail, such as the specific social activities hosted by the Churches or particularly valued named shops, which feature in some of the Statements.
What are the main themes?
The main themes to emerge are shown in the Table below, with some grouping by broader categories.
Broad category |
Theme |
Statements |
Health |
Visits to the PCC and Pharmacy |
40 |
Village Economy |
Visits to Village Shops |
31 |
The Village Businesses/Economy |
17 |
|
Recent and potential further decline |
17 |
|
Visits to Village Services |
11 |
|
Specific locations |
Methodist Church |
12 |
Holy Trinity |
7 |
|
Village Hall |
3 |
|
School |
2 |
|
Intangibles |
Sense of community |
14 |
Social interaction |
8 |
|
Threat to Village character |
1 |
|
Parking |
Congested local streets |
13 |
Visiting to the Primary Care Centre (PCC - aka the Doctors’ Surgery), sometimes including the separate on-site Pharmacy, was the most widely-cited theme, appearing in about 80% of all Statements. Many noted the unwelcome additional cost of medical appointments and maybe its deterring some, especially the elderly, from presenting for consultations and treatment in the first place. Understandably, the statement from the PCC itself was exclusively on this theme (Statement #9) but so was one other, from two local residents (#65).
Predictably, the silver medal in the ordering of themes goes to visits to the Village’s shops (about 60%). This also formed the largest broad group of responses when amalgamated with similar ‘economic’ themes, such as the impact of parking charges on services (cafes, hairdressers…), on other businesses and on the local economy referred to in general terms, without further elaboration. Many felt the introduction of charging would lead to further decline of the local economy, exemplified by the recent closure of three of its banks, in quick succession. Some examples:
‘there will be a real threat to some businesses [from charging]which are already on the knife edge of viability’(#21)
‘the village will become a backwater area’ (#33)
‘you may well gain some small income from these charges but rest assured you’ll be killing a village’ (#37)
‘there is a danger that Westbury will become a ghost village’ (#51)
Some submissions, from past and present chairs of WoTSoc, also pointed out this ran counter to Bristol’s declared policy of supporting healthy second-tier neighbourhood shopping centres, as reinforced recently in the City’s Local Plan revision (#57,#63).
It is also worth noting that these two themes - visits to the PCC and to shops and services – also topped the list of reasons drivers gave to visit the Westbury Hill car park in the survey run by WoTSoc in summer, 2023 and referred to its own Statement (#57).
Taken together, the two central Village churches (Methodist Church and Holy Trinity) and ‘church’ (unspecified) were cited by about 60% of Statements. The first enjoyed the highest number, largely on account of its impressive array of much-valued social activities, such as for the elderly, young people, Ukrainian refugees and alcoholics.
Among the remaining themes cited are the Village Hall, the ‘local school’ (presumably Westbury Academy) and the impact on local residents. Over 25% of statements stressed how parking charges on Westbury Hill would ‘encourage’ drivers to park for free in nearby, but unsuitable, residential streets in the Village core, assuming they didn’t drive them away altogether, particularly to the abundant free parking provided at Cribbs.
Separately, nearly half of the Statements (25) also mentioned the specific needs and constraints of the elderly. These were overlain across our ‘theme’-based classification. So older people find access difficult to the PCC, and value the social contact of ‘knit and natter’ in the Methodists Church or a chance to meet friends for coffee in Costas. Two Statements specifically mentioned the mental health and wellbeing advantages of such company for the lonely after the isolation of Covid (#20 and #31).
How many themes per Statement?
Encouragingly, most statements ranged over more than just one theme, and slightly over half cited four or more (the average was 3.8), and one as many as nine (#31). WoTSoc’s own Statement covered six, discussing each in detail (#57). At the other extreme, one simply noted a general but unspecified concern for the Village if charging was introduced, two just specified the PCC. and one the shops.
Conclusions and Lessons?
Three things. First, the WoT community responded with commendable speed to the opportunity to make its views known on an issue of very real local importance to, despite the very short notice provided. Clearly, the networking communication between and within groups and individuals is in good shape, which bodes well for any such future calls. Second, the majority of the Statements ranged over a number of significant and different ways in which the free car park benefitted the Village and would damage it if lost – social, economic, community and health-related. The broader the base of argument the more persuasive and effective the public response should be. And the main exception, from the PCC (#9), raised detailed arguments based on its own practices and experience, simply unavailable to others. Third, the Statements came from a mixture of WoT organisations and residents, were of varied length and style and were clearly individually crafted. No inference could be drawn that they were simply ‘cut and paste’ exercises from a pre-circulated template of ‘suggestions’, They are all the more powerful as the collective voice of Village.
Predictably, the silver medal in the ordering of themes goes to visits to the Village’s shops (about 60%). This also formed the largest broad group of responses when amalgamated with similar ‘economic’ themes, such as the impact of parking charges on services (cafes, hairdressers…), on other businesses and on the local economy referred to in general terms, without further elaboration. Many felt the introduction of charging would lead to further decline of the local economy, exemplified by the recent closure of three of its banks, in quick succession. Some examples:
‘there will be a real threat to some businesses [from charging]which are already on the knife edge of viability’(#21)
‘the village will become a backwater area’ (#33)
‘you may well gain some small income from these charges but rest assured you’ll be killing a village’ (#37)
‘there is a danger that Westbury will become a ghost village’ (#51)
Some submissions, from past and present chairs of WoTSoc, also pointed out this ran counter to Bristol’s declared policy of supporting healthy second-tier neighbourhood shopping centres, as reinforced recently in the City’s Local Plan revision (#57,#63).
It is also worth noting that these two themes - visits to the PCC and to shops and services – also topped the list of reasons drivers gave to visit the Westbury Hill car park in the survey run by WoTSoc in summer, 2023 and referred to its own Statement (#57).
Taken together, the two central Village churches (Methodist Church and Holy Trinity) and ‘church’ (unspecified) were cited by about 60% of Statements. The first enjoyed the highest number, largely on account of its impressive array of much-valued social activities, such as for the elderly, young people, Ukrainian refugees and alcoholics.
Among the remaining themes cited are the Village Hall, the ‘local school’ (presumably Westbury Academy) and the impact on local residents. Over 25% of statements stressed how parking charges on Westbury Hill would ‘encourage’ drivers to park for free in nearby, but unsuitable, residential streets in the Village core, assuming they didn’t drive them away altogether, particularly to the abundant free parking provided at Cribbs.
Separately, nearly half of the Statements (25) also mentioned the specific needs and constraints of the elderly. These were overlain across our ‘theme’-based classification. So older people find access difficult to the PCC, and value the social contact of ‘knit and natter’ in the Methodists Church or a chance to meet friends for coffee in Costas. Two Statements specifically mentioned the mental health and wellbeing advantages of such company for the lonely after the isolation of Covid (#20 and #31).
How many themes per Statement?
Encouragingly, most statements ranged over more than just one theme, and slightly over half cited four or more (the average was 3.8), and one as many as nine (#31). WoTSoc’s own Statement covered six, discussing each in detail (#57). At the other extreme, one simply noted a general but unspecified concern for the Village if charging was introduced, two just specified the PCC. and one the shops.
Conclusions and Lessons?
Three things. First, the WoT community responded with commendable speed to the opportunity to make its views known on an issue of very real local importance to, despite the very short notice provided. Clearly, the networking communication between and within groups and individuals is in good shape, which bodes well for any such future calls. Second, the majority of the Statements ranged over a number of significant and different ways in which the free car park benefitted the Village and would damage it if lost – social, economic, community and health-related. The broader the base of argument the more persuasive and effective the public response should be. And the main exception, from the PCC (#9), raised detailed arguments based on its own practices and experience, simply unavailable to others. Third, the Statements came from a mixture of WoT organisations and residents, were of varied length and style and were clearly individually crafted. No inference could be drawn that they were simply ‘cut and paste’ exercises from a pre-circulated template of ‘suggestions’, They are all the more powerful as the collective voice of Village.
