Mixed response to Great Yarmouth parking plans

PROPOSALS to create a new shared residents’ parking/ pay and display scheme in Great Yarmouth have received a mixed response from households who stand to be affected.

More than 2,200 letters have been sent out to homes in the Zone A area between the seafront and town centre asking for their say on the changes, aimed at plugging a �76,000 gap between operation and income.

Project engineer Paul Sellick said the proposal was to introduce pay and display in some under-used streets during the day to cover the funding shortfall and provide more parking for visitors.

The other option, he added, was to increase the cost of permits, currently �25 for residents and �150 for businesses, by as much as �50 each.

The permit scheme introduced three-and-a-half years ago had been successful in protecting residents’ parking but was not paying its way and had been criticised for putting off visitors, he added.

In Yarmouth, it was a difficult balancing act with shopppers, commuters, residents and day-trippers all jostling for spaces that none of them particularly wanted to pay for.

Whether visitors would be prepared to pay to park in streets behind the seafront or simply parked there before because it was free, remained to be seen Mr Sellick said.

Most Read

Officials are due to collate the responses and present them to car parking steering committee members in the new year, with a decision due before the busy summer season.

Pay and display machines from the seafront which are due an upgrade would be moved to Zone A, if the shared scheme went ahead, offsetting some of the set-up costs.

Under the plans some streets such as Trafalgar Road, St Georges Road, Britannia Road, Marlborough Terrace, Princes Road and Wellesley will switch to shared use from 9am to 4pm with residents protected at the beginning and end of the day.

“Over the years there have been reports to members that there are too many empty spaces during the day.

“The other main driver is that the scheme has always been supported by subsidies,” Mr Sellick said. He added he received a “mixed bag” of phone calls and responses.