Bristol Green Party Logo

Monday, 4th Mar 2019 by Charlie Bolton

Bedminster Green framework - response

First off, I'd like to thank Nicola Beech for the time and effort she has put into the Bedminster Green development. While I don't agree completely with her conclusions, I accept she has acted both honourably and with the best of intentions. I am also aware she has been to meetings where she has been treated with a certain amount of hostility, but has stuck to her guns. One can only admire her for this.

However, that doesn't mean I agree with the framework. I have some areas I support, but some areas I cannot.

(Items in italics in the rest of this statement are taken from the cabinet papers)

Height and massing

Bedminster Green – or specifically the controversy about Bedminster green – is, and always has been, about both the height of the buildings and the number of tall buildings in the one place.

It is obviously the issue that causes most concern to Windmill Hill residents but also causes concern to substantial numbers of Southville (ward) residents.

The main concern I share with Jon Wellington and Lucy Whittle – highlighted in a letter we wrote some months back –is that we agree with the residents. Basically the development is simply too big.

I add that I'd be happy to support a substantial high density development, and note that areas like that by Gaol Ferry bridge have that but with buildings that are 5 to 6 storey's in height.

Looking at the heights of the framework, it proposes low rise (2-5 floors), mid-high (6-9 buildings), framing buildings (up to 10; including opportunities to step up towards tall buildings. ) and tall building opportunities – which means who knows what.

Had the framework stated that there would be a maximum height of 10 storeys with an average of 5-7 say, I'd have been entirely happy with that. But it doesn't.


Latest proposals include around 1200 student units. While I can accept the need to distribute the student population over a wider area in the name of balance, having 1200 in such a small area – this is the last word I would use to describe it.


The report seeks approval to allocate £6m of CIL funding for highway/River restoration and flood alleviation infrastructure schemes within the Bedminster area

If we are to have this massive development, I will clearly support the additional CIL for the area.

Lower requirement for affordable housing

For an interim period applications that meet a threshold of 20% affordable housing within

Bristol's Inner West, Inner East zones and the Greater Bedminster area (comprising the wards of Bedminster, Southville and Windmill Hill) under Policy BCS17 (normally the Inner Zones have 40% and Greater Bedminster 30% policy targets) will not be subject to viability testing.

I can't support this. I understand the rationale behind it, but I supported the original St Catherines Place application on the basis that there would be a considerable amount of affordable housing in the wider development. Now, it seems that is being abandoned for speed of development.

A38 Corridor (CIL / Grant funding)

The first piece of infrastructure to be established relates to the future of the A38 corridor in this

location. Identified within the Joint Strategic Plan (JSP) is the need for the A38 to convey reliable and

rapid public transport provision to serve between the City Centre, south Bristol and Bristol Airport. It

would present a risk to the future of this corridor (and growth in the wider region) if planning

decisions along it precluded the delivery of enhanced passenger transport to serve this and adjoining areas.


I would observe that the A38 Dalby Aveneue/Malago Road is already a very busy road, and I struggle to see anything making it particularly attractive. Airport expansion seems likely to make this route all the busier.

2.6 Parking Mitigation (section 106-funded)

A form of Residents Parking Scheme (RPS) delivered upon first / early occupation of the

development will form part of the Council's recommended solution. This shall however require the

support of local stakeholders through public consultation. Agreement of this approach with

stakeholders would be preferable to a situation where insufficient measures are implemented and

problems are allowed to arise and then require to be dealt with retrospectively.

I can see this being a big controversial issue, because Bedminster Green is on the boundary (or parts are within) between the Bedminster East RPZ, and Windmill Hill (which is outside of the zone).

Bedminster Station (developer-delivered and/or s106 and grant funded)

Bedminster station is on the mainline to and from Bristol Temple Meads and is a significant public

transport asset. However, it presently lacks facilities and presence in the public realm and pedestrian

access is of a low quality. The BG Framework recognises that the development of Plot 5 provides a

significant opportunity to create a prominent frontage and accessible entrance to the station, with a

direct link and line of sight to East Street. The delivery of these improvements are however in part

reliant upon the resolution of the future requirements for Whitehouse Lane – ie: one-way orders,

closure, or other traffic management proposals to be put forward as part of the STA.

I will happily support measures to improve and increase the use of Bedminster station.

Cycle Linkages (section 106-funded and/or section 278 delivered)

At present, cycle linkages to the surrounding area are low quality and in their present state would

not encourage the uptake in cycling required to make the BG developments acceptable. Investment

is therefore required in the surrounding area, particularly when the current routes that link the BG

area with the Malago Greenway, Filwood Quietway, the City Centre and the Temple Quarter

Enterprise Zone (TQEZ) are either circuitous, indirect or require cyclists to share road space with

motor traffic.

I agree that these routes are inadequate in the way mentioned. I believe the council needs to make a firm commitment to improving the situation.


The River Malago flows along the south and eastern boundary of the BG framework area, with

approximately 140m of the total 415m length through the site being culverted. The regeneration of

the area provides the opportunity to consider options for works to improve the condition of the river

and to provide flood risk benefits to the local area.

On the assumption that it does not increase the risk of flooding, I will support this.

Federation of City Farms

I understand the council are seeking to relocate the organisation I know as the Federation of City Farms (but renamed Social Farms and Gardens). The proposals on Bedminster Green seem to me to mean they will lose their current premises. I gather officers are looking at alternatives which I am pleased to see and must ask these are seen through to completion.


When I go to presentations with individual developers, Cllr Clarke or I generally raise the issue of making the development carbon-neutral, or something like it. We are normally met with a 'look' which suggests that isn't going to happen.

I repeat the request here. Given the Council's commitment to becoming carbon-neutral by 2030, then surely we could be asking for this in Bedminster Green? Any new housing that is not as energy efficient as possible is 'building in' climate failure for the future.

(Well, I can ask…)


The massive development that is Bedminster Green, combined with possible development at Western Harbour on the south of the river, and around North St – are going to change the Southvile ward permanently and forever.

As stated in this statement, I supported the original St Catherines Place development. I did so for three reasons – benefits to East St, improvements to the place itself but above all the promise of substantial levels of affordable housing in the wider development. At the time, these outweighed the unpopularity of the height.

At a personal level, I don't like all the tall buildings we seem to be being offered.  The plans and design all look pretty much the same to me. And – while not to the same extent as Windmill Hill, I am aware there is some significant unhappiness in my ward at the overall impact of Bedminster Green.

The problem is that we are going to end up with the height, but not the levels of affordable housing.  So – to me – the balance is weighted too heavily in favour of the developer.

I therefore ask cabinet and the mayor not to pass this plan but to seek to redress that balance.

 Charlie Bolton

Thursday, 24th May 2018 by Charlie Bolton

Bedminster Green survey results

Bedminster Green survey

Southville Green councillors have conducted a survey of residents in the area to try and ascertain their views of the proposals for Bedminster Green.

Overall, they received 306 responses. 28 were collected door to door (in the area of Southville ward, between Malago Road and East St – the rest obtained on-line.

The survey asked for the street people lived in:

88 live in Southville

Around 50 gave no address

20 or so live in Bedminster or other wards

The rest – approximately half – live in Windmill Hill



q1 Do you think Bedminster Green area should be developed













Southville only









q2  Do you think tall buildings are













Southville only








Q3 Do you think having as much affordable housing as possible in the development is













Southville only









This is the response to the questions on air quality, school places, health provision and public transport.



This is a selection of the comments people made. (There are over 30 pages in total!)

Comments on tall buildings

I think there is even a difference between tall buildings... and "this" many buildings that are "this" tall. Tall buildings in the right place, sure - fine. Tall building in keeping, sure - fine. But that many buildings, this tall, in this location - it seems disproportionate and out of character.

I worry about the landscape of the city changing if tall buildings are built. Bristol is a city without really tall buildings and all the better for it. It will have huge implications on what the city will look/feel like in the future. There must be alternatives.

Really very depressed that what was set out to be some sort of new urban village plan has morphed into a profit-taking series of land-banking planning permission exercises that raise the land value , presumably reducing the real options to A. Build Nothing in foreseeable future whilst sitting on plot with permission. B. Build enormous if finance found. Really cant take any of the actors seriously any more , or fit their latest jigsaw piece in with the others as they keep changing ideas, selling-out, and not constructing. Nothing has been delivered, But nothing appeals.

This area is nice green space and should be left untouched as it's places like this that make Bristol the unique city that it is.

On a political level, where are the 22 storey proposals in Clifton or Redland?

Tall isn’t bad, we need houses and here on brownfield, very close to the city centre is much better than on green fields and car journeys away

High rise buildings in this area are pushing an agenda for the council without due consideration of their potential negative impact upon an area. The majority of south bristol housing is low to medium level. Tall buildings in the proposed locations will dominate the skyline towards the city. An influx of residents, without sufficient infrastructure to support them, will put pressure on already struggling resources.

Concerned about mono-culture in 1, 2 bed flats.

We need to build communities that bring people together if we are going to take pressure off the NHS. The present plans for the area are inappropriate if will do huge damage. It was a massive error to grant permission for a tower block at St Catherine's Place

My brother lives on the 10th floor of one in Dubai, loves it.

I know the area well having lived in or around since the 90s.  I see or travel through this immediate area every day re kids, friends and work. These plans need urgent community involvement as a priority, and joined up thinking, putting community at the heart of all housing design.  The scale, mass and height of the developers' ambitions are fantastical and worrying for the existing community and surrounding areas.  Particularly as this type of housing is NOT recommended for cityscapes like Bristol and will contribute nothing to it. This is not Good Design, and does not compliment the thriving and vibrant culture created by residents here over the last 20 odd yrs.  Equally it does not address in any way the current affordable housing shortage for families and other residents here in Bedminster or beyond. It feels as if we don't have a stake anymore in the way councils consider & award planning permission.  The places we call home and the fragile community pockets & spaces we create and invest in can be destroyed and broken so easily by BCC. Put people and communities ahead of profit for developers.    Because that's what it is.  There are so many amazing housing drvelopment alternatives out there that will compliment and enhance Bristol.

If they are well designed. It should be noted that there is a wide demographic who are happy and even aspire to living in such buildings. WHaM's assertion that we would 'repeat mistakes of the 1970s' is a mis-conception. Likewise trying to use the Grenfell tragedy to support a NIMBY agenda.

I accept there is a need for more housing but building flats 18 / 20 storeys high in this area will devastate it.  It will be just a concrete jungle and out of keeping with the area.

Wapping Wharf with 6 -8 storeys and shops/cafes, etc is a human-scale development but the proposed high-rises will overwhelm and overshadow everything in the vicinity

1200 to 1500 and no parking you the councillors are a joke!!


Other comments


Incentives for occupants not to have cars would be good (reduced rent/ service charge/ council tax and given location close to city centre and public transport very reasonable (but plenty of room for improvement in public transport)

The area is already over populated. There is no parking

The issue is not really about height, but about optimal density, quality and liveability. Height MAY be a proxy for these but not always.

I am passionate about sustainability and the environment , and a Green Party voter, so it may seem contradictory to promote development of green land, especially 'IN MY BACKYARD'.
(Yimby!!) However, the small patch of green is right next to the busy Dalby ave and not often used for actual 'park' activities, given that the beautiful Victoria park and Windmill city farm is right next door.  In this case I think it is about weighing in the huge potential this development could have on our local community. Perhaps some activity spaces such as community centre/music groups/yoga studio/meeting space could be included in the ground level to make the development an asset for all of the neighbourhood, not only the residents.

 Again, in order to prevent gentrification, locals who have lived in Bemmie all their lifes should be offered tenancy/be first in line to buy the flats that are sold.

However, if this development is promoted correctly, it has the potential to be a truly sustainable housing location, with metrobuses connecting to north parts of Bristol and closeness by bike and foot to all central attractions. It could revive our own high street and transform Bemmie without pushing away the lower income households

No good just having Marvin saying he wants a legacy of skyscrapers. These cant be afforded by the majority through their lifetime. And don't deliver community , amenity , fire safety etc. density even.

Coordination between developers at the planning stage is ESSENTIAL for good place-making and rational circulation for the scheme as a whole. The planning process should be obliged to ensure that a masterplan achieves some joined up thinking.

It should be all affordable. And sustainable - homes with storage and outdoor amenity space. And preserve the green-roofed Segal building

Need to ensure active frontages (not bin stores & bike parking, but shops, cafes, leisure). Good to have a mix of units not just 1 & 2-bed flats - some family homes. Parking in surrounding area needs to be addressed (eg Windmill Hill)

Very important to me to keep all the mature trees on the ‘Green’ otherwise it won’t be very green . Need traffic calming measures on Malago Rd (air and noise pollution bad at the moment). GP provision in the area already overstretched. If tall apartments well built/ designed then not a problem.

The area is made up of families living in pretty Terace Houses. Please think about the high rise not fitting in with the area. Gaol Ferry Steps has flats which fit in with the skyline and apex roofs which also fit in. Please can you be creative and develop the area in a different way? The site pollution is already one of the highest in Bristol and surrounding areas. Also after Grenville Towers why would you want to build such tall buildings. I do not think the fire brigade have ladders and equipment to fight a fire in such a tall building?

Since East St is already one of the most polluted roads in the country, I would like to know what BCC's plan is to improve that, particularly with another 1,000+ residents very locally.

The total arrogance and undemocratic practice of the Mayor and Council on this matter

Community infrastructure is key - those above plus utilties and broadband. Air quality a no providing car parking is "managed", i.e. car ownership minimized

It is simply ludicrous that blocks of 10–23 stories are even being considered for this part of Bristol. It's utterly incongruous with the existing built environment, and seems solely designed to tick the box for 'units created', with little thought to the existing or future community.
The plans, or what we know of them so far, are piecemeal, greedy, ugly, and are the clearest examples short-termism and unconnected planning in development that I have seen. They will create a transient and unconnected community which will, at worst, blight Bedminster for many decades to come.
With so many examples of decent family housing so close by (Abode Homes on Bedminster Road), and medium–high rise, dense town-centre development (Wapping wharf), why should Bedminster Green not be considered for a mix of these styles/types of development? Why is high-rise being touted as the only solution for every single plot that's bought up?
Something nobody wants to address is the cost of the land: if developers can only profit at 10-stories-plus, surely that's simply a sign they've overpaid for the land in the bidding wars of several years ago. Why should an established community be forced to pay the price for that level of hubris?
One final question I would have is why Bedminster is considered a perfect location for this kind of euphemistically-titled 'urban living' scheme (super-dense, with polluting energy centres etc), but the affluent west and north of the city are not even included in 'urban living' consultations. There is a historic character to South Bristol, just as there is to the north, though it is a far more working-class history. These insulting plans ride roughshod over this history, and this character, and seem more likely to hamper not help development of the area over the coming decades.

This is predominately a LOW RISE area & the introduction of above 6 floors is unnecessary


This development will cause enormous congestion around one of only two access points to Windmil Hill. Both while it is being prepared, and built (i.e. years) and afterwards  in the future. There is no good solution for people who live past the railway line and have only one way to reach their homes

As a Green Party memeber, I am disappointed that the Green councilors for Southville ward have taken so long to make any contact with residents who are most affected by the plans - most of whom live in the adjacent Windmill Hill ward. There has been nothing in the local newsletter and little or nothing from The Green Party in Bristol as a whole. I feel sure that if high rise development had been planned for the upmarket end of the ward around the Tobacco Factory then the plans would have been put to much greater scrutiny by Green members of the Council.

High rise development is never a good idea for creating sustainable communities for children to grow up in. All studies show that high rise is not good for children, for the elderly and for anybody with a disability. They favour young. fully able mobile, childless adults. The Green Party, if it means anything at all, should be supportive of the needs of the disadvantaged.

I am aware that the executive Mayor has almost dictatorial powers over development decisions. That does not mean that he and his majority party on the Council should not be vigourously challenged by all opposition parties on the Council - especially The Green Party. This development goes against almost everything that The Green Party should be fighting for. The Green Party in Bristol should be upholding those green principles

This is a massive project that will change the area.  I feel Consultation regarding the whole project should happen.  Including what local amenities are planned by BCC with the CIL money.


Thursday, 1st Feb 2018 by Charlie Bolton

Letter: Response to the article - Council accused of ‘pandering to the cycling lobby’

Green Cllr Charlie Bolton's letter to the Post: 

Dear Sir

I am in no way surprised to see Richard Eddy attacking a Council proposal to improve cycling and walking (Council accused of ‘pandering to the cycling lobby’ by removing Bristol footbridge in £280,000 scheme, Post, 30/1/18).

Local Tories have ‘previous’ when it comes to attacking cycling schemes. One can only assume they have either forgotten or ignored the massive health and congestion benefits of cycling and walking. They may also have forgotten that the scheme is funded through the government’s Cycle Ambition Fund, which his own party set up.

I would, however, refer Councillor Eddy to the Post report on the opening of the South Bristol Link road (The South Bristol Link Road is about to open - this is what it will mean for drivers). At a massive cost of £45m for a 4.5km stretch of road this ‘pandering to the car lobby’ will cost roughly £10,000 per metre – so I suggest Richard gets a sense of proportion.


Cllr Charlie Bolton 


Monday, 4th Sep 2017 by Molly Scott Cato MEP

What it might cost to leave the EU

This post was originally published on the facebook page of Molly Scott Cato, Bristol's Green MEP. 

There is so much political heat being generated about what it might cost to leave the EU that I thought I would just summarise what the argument is about. This is not original work: it's based on the figures provided by Alex Barker of the FT back in May for which he used the negotiating guidelines agreed with the remaining 27 EU members. The UK government has not yet come forward with its own figures for what we might owe or even an alternative method of calculating it. Imprecise estimates range from Boris Johnson’s whistling and John Redwood’s zilch to David Davis's acceptance that we do have a moral and financial responsibility, as yet uncosted.

Why do we owe anything at all? There are two basic answers to that question. Firstly, like most political organisations, the European Union runs a deficit budget system. If the Scots had voted for independence they would have taken their share of the UK national debt with them. The same applies to us leaving the EU. You can think of this element of the bill as being our share of the debt that has been accumulated over the years of our membership. This is estimated at €36.2bn.

Then we have the commitments we have already made before we voted to leave. Because EU budgets work on a seven year period, we have committed ourselves up to the end of this financial framework period, which is 2020. So even if we leave in 2019 we have already agreed to pay for things that go on until 2020. You may have heard the EU's chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, talking about these commitments in the press conference yesterday. We've already signed off on the infrastructure projects in various EU countries as well as aid projects two countries in Africa, Gaza, and so on. It seems reasonable to me to say that if we were part of a political organisation that agreed to the spending, we can't just leave in the lurch the people who already have these projects on the way. This cost is estimated at €27.6bn.

Barnier also insists that we continue to pay our share of the running costs of the EU until we leave, the majority of which will cover continued payments to farmers, which he estimates at €27.4bn. Some member states think we should pay for more EU projects during this phase or that our liabilities here should be extended to the period after we have left.

Then there are a number of less predictable and longer-term commitments. Many Brits have worked in the EU institutions over the forty years of our membership and once we leave we will take on the liability for their pensions from the EU (€9.6bn). We will also be responsible for a share of ‘contingent liabilities’ if projects of funding arrangements that we have agreed to go wrong and end up requiring additional funding (€11.9bn).

Balanced against these liabilities are considerable assets we have acquired during our membership, including a share of buildings that belong to the EU Commission and Council. A deduction will also be made for spending that would have been made in the UK had we continued in membership. Together these add up to around €40bn

That's all the detail we have so far. On the basis of this, and conversations with those close to the negotiations, the FT estimated a net payment of €55bn-€75bn and as much as €91bn-€113bn if the more hawkish members prevail and we continue to fund the central running costs of the EU until the end of this budget period in 2020.

Clear as mud? I hope it helps to take us away from the tabloid mud-slinging at least.

Tuesday, 29th Aug 2017 by Molly Scott Cato MEP

Brexit: The public must have the final say

This blog was originally published in Green World magazine.

Molly Scott Cato MEP, Green Party speaker on Brexit, makes the case for the final deal on Brexit to be a matter of choice for the British electorate

Theresa May’s snap General Election gamble, seeking a mandate for a hard Brexit, backfired spectacularly. The result undermined rather than validated the Tories’ damaging plans. Yet 83 per cent of people voted for a party committed to leaving not only the EU but also the single market, didn’t they?  

Admittedly, there are no differences in policy between Labour and the Tories on membership of the single market and freedom of movement. However, it seems that a resigned acceptance of the UK leaving the EU led many Remainers to choose the party they believed would negotiate the least damaging Brexit. This was also an election fought largely on domestic issues, so to use the outcome as vindication for any sort of Brexit is disingenuous.  

But Labour and the Tories should take note of how public mood is shifting. Recent surveys suggest a majority of people would now like to see either Brexit abandoned completely, a second referendum, or a distinctly softer Brexit. A recent survey of Labour members showed more than 80 per cent oppose leaving the Single Market.  

Public attitudes towards Brexit are in constant flux. We cannot forever rely on the outcome of a single question on a particular day to determine our future relationship with Europe. The nuances and complexities of our relationship with our European neighbours are becoming clearer as are the protections offered by the EU to our environment and workers’ rights. These are issues that Greens highlighted during the referendum campaign, but such concerns were drowned out by deceitful messaging from the far right and right-wing media. 

 Ultimately, we will arrive at a new fork in the road, where people should again be given the opportunity to decide which direction they want the country to go in. With an idea of the Brexit deal on the table, we will be able to compare this with what we get by remaining in the EU. 

 So the idea of a ratification referendum is now more important than ever – and it must include an option for the UK to remain a member of the EU. This is not just wishful thinking by ‘remoaners’. A chorus of high profile voices have urged Britain to stay, from writer and philosopher Professor A. C. Grayling to Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council. 

 Of course to become a reality, the idea of a ratification referendum will need cross-party support. The Lib Dems have pledged support for a second referendum on the Brexit deal, but so far Labour have resisted the idea. However, London Mayor Sadiq Khan, one of Labour’s highest profile politicians, recently backed a second referendum, which will likely encourage other Labour politicians to follow suit. Even those Tories desperate to avoid a hard Brexit cliff-edge scenario might regard another referendum as a way out of the quagmire.  

Leaving the EU is not inevitable; indeed, it is less inevitable now than before the general election. Green MEPs will continue to portray both the EU and the Brexit process as accurately and positively as possible to help inform voters ahead of any potential ratification referendum. 

Wednesday, 26th Jul 2017 by Charlie Bolton

RPS in Southville and Bedminster East

Changes to RPS in Southville and Bedminster East

 This webpage details the changes as at 26/7/2017 to the RPS zones in Bedminster East and Southville. These are prior to any formal consultation, and some details are still being ironed out.

If you have any comments, especially 'hold up your hands in horror' comments, please get in touch:

Extension of zone across North St into Ashton

This will not take place. The council have refused to take on board our request for an extension of the zone to ea limited number of streets.

They have said a new zone will be considered but only if it can be shown that it has widespread support. Given we do not know what this means in practice, you have to reckon any such new zones are some years away.

 Hours and days of operation

There is likely to be an increase in hours and days of operation. To help us better understand the demand for this, please complete the following (simple) survey:

Proposed changes to Southville



Beauley Road

Top end – reduce DYL/increase bay by upto 8.9m


Change road to mixed use


Increase PandD to 5hrs, allow return without penalty

Camden Road

Small extension to bays nr no 40

Coronation Road

Remove parking on river side. Reinstate some on house side


Extend bay by 153


Turn bay by Avon Packet to shared use from PandD

Dean Lane

Make school Keep Clear signs mandatory


Remove bays by Southbank club and make DYL

Gathorne Road

Small extension to space available by removal of DYL over dropped kerb

Greville Road

Increase space available at bottom end near Upton Road

Greville St

Add some 10m or so of bays/reduce DYL near top

Hamilton Road

Small increase in space (2.2m) near top

Howard Road

Remove bays near Dalston Road (on Dalston Road side)

Leigh Road

Remove bay by Ashville pub (safety measure for Chalcroft House)

Lydstep Trc

Remove 3.5m of DYL by no 19

Morley Road

Extend bay on one side to no 22

Gathorne Rad

Remove DYl at North St end by dropped kerb

North St

Loading bay by Ashton fruit and veg

North St

DYL by Lion stores

Frayne Road

Make house side resident only

South side of North St

To be included in scheme???

North St nr Upper Sydney St

Change Pand D to shared use

Park Road

2m extension onf bay near reclamation business

Raleigh Road

Remove disabled bays. Increase bay on north side by 23m


Some changes for new dropped kerbs

Upton Road

Remove DYL y house with droipped kerb

Roads off North St

Extend area of shared use

Numerous queries re blue badge bays


Dartmoor St

Being dealt with separately


Reduce number of bays by Faithspace from 3 to 1


Proposed changes to Bedminster East

Alpha Road

Remove DYL outside Imp

Church Road

Replace DYL at turning head with 2 additional bays, making 3

Dean Crescent

Convert permit holder bay outside no 11 to shared use

Herbert St

Convert some PandD to shared use

Mead St

Convert to shared use

New Charlotte St

Add parking bays  and remove DYL

Phillip St

Increase to 4 hrs

Southville Place

Convert DYL to bays opposite 30/outside 23

Southville Road

Remove a couple of bays to improve access for funeral  home

Southville Road

Extend shared space in a couple of other locations along road

Spring St

Extend DYLs at York Rd junction

Stafford St

Add 22m of parking bay

Stillhouse Lane

Reduce bays by 2.5m

Whitehouse St

Reduce bays by 1 car length (one end), and by 1m at other end to ease car park access

Willway St

Under discussion


A few changes at specific addresses eg for blue badge bays, dropped kerbs

Warden Road

Extend by 1m the permit holders bay at East St end, and on the other side bring bay to boundary of number 14.

Wesley Street


Convert P&D to Shared Use.



Outstanding issues

The main outstanding issues are Willway St, Dartmoor St and hours of operation. there are also numerous issues concerning individual residences eg droppped kerbs, blue badge bays etc

We use cookies on our website to improve your experience, by using our website you accept the use of these cookies. Read More Close