In this section we collated feedback from you and other Prestwich residents  and shared it with

As the feedback period has now closed, we have stopped accepting comments on this for now.

Feedback on how the Prestwich Regeneration Project needs to factor in the impacts of Parking into it’s design

Electric Charging Points in the new car park

  1. Will the new car park have electric charging points for all vehicles as within 10 years 7 years all new cars will be electric. It would be expensive to retrofit additional charging points
  2. Does the above mean that an new elctrical substation may be required?  

Charge to use the new car park?

  1. Charges may deter shoppers from visiting the village 
  2. There is a concern that cars will start to park on nearby streets (Poppythorn Lane, Nursery Road, etc) if parking fees apply, which will then lead to ‘Permit Parking’ zones being introduced into the arae which nobody wants

20 thoughts on “Parking”

  1. Given the climate emergency and the impact of private car use on it, the development should be limited to no more parking than currently exists and ideally a reduction in car parking. Lots of parking encourages car use, which equals traffic congestion and air pollution.

    Rather than focusing on parking, the efforts should be towards providing high quality and innovative transport solutions to encourage and support people to make alternate choices to driving from their home in Prestwich into the village centre.

    A multi-storey car park will be very costly to provide. If there is no charging mechanism to use it, sacrificies will have to be made elsewhere in the development. Residents should be assisted and encouraged to think very carefully about priorities. I would much prefer a gold standard village square, community facilities and sustainability credentials than a multi-storey car park.

  2. One main criticism of the parking is the lack of thought to the proximity of the community hub
    this should be the nearest building to the parking because of NHS provision and events that could be put on – next must be the shops to encourage them to thrive
    unfortunately have seen nothing innovative to inspire me on traffic and parking

    1. Good points Steven, I think that the current parking provision was good in terms of accessibility and convenience, including for those with physical disabilities to the Longfield precinct and the NHS drop in/surgeries, and for safety and security for visitors of the Longfield Suite to events taking place after dark.
      I note that residents of the Radcliffe Hub have recently discovered that there will be no dedicated parking spaces for visitors to it, and the council are looking at alternatives.
      At the least there should be parking for those with specific needs closer to the community hub.

  3. Previous proposals for the Longfield Centre redevelopment indicated the location of a multi-storey car park on the existing Longfield surface level car park and I’m not sure why it is now shown on the Fairfax Road site? I understand that there has been no traffic assessment carried out to inform these proposals so has this change been driven purely by design or commercial considerations? I do not support the location of a multi-storey car park in this location for several reasons:
    1. It will place further massive pressure on Fairfax Road and in particular the section of Fairfax Road between the current car park entrance and the junction with Heys Road / Poppythorn Lane. This congestion will spill over onto surrounding residential roads which already suffer because of backed up traffic on Fairfax Road. This is in part because Fairfax Road is the only signalised junction between the motorway and Scholes Lane
    2. Car parking needs to be located next to the community hub building otherwise there will need to be another car parking area for essential users and disabled parking
    3. The Fairfax Road site is the wrong shape for a multi-storey car park and only has a single access / egress point, which will result in an inefficient use of the site and a lot of unnecessary circulation space within the site
    4. The Fairfax Road site is the best location to locate good quality family housing within the Village area, which could also generate money for the multi-storey, community hub and public realm

  4. Parking is a huge issue in Prestwich especially those who do not have a drive, I believe parking permits should be introduced those who live in Prestwich and do not have a drive. Also a word with Heaton park (MCC) regarding charges to park there since introducing charges alot will choose to park on the outskirts of the park filling surrounding roads ( unfair to those who live here) A small carpark ( on park at) is filled before 08.30am by teachers working at St Hilda’s this impacts local businesses and again those who live here.

  5. We already get problems all the way down Hayes Road, making it quite dangerous around the school at home time, due to traffic on Faifax Road. Putting all the parking on the other side of Fairfax Road would result in people having to cross over that road for everything – to the community facilities, shops and the tram stop. And, if the car park capacity is doubled, twice the number of cars would be trying to enter and exit while being further slowed by the whole load of people trying to cross the road.
    There is currently a “spare” bridge under the tram lines. I wonder if that could be utilised to help reduce traffic in some way?

    If the Faifax Car Park area was used for housing, a double level car parking area could be built adjacent to the tram stop, then there would be far less need to cross roads and the extra bridge could be used as an entrance/exit to the parking area -perhaps. The upper level of parking could extend on top of new buildings -possibly: It needn’t look so much like a car park if it sits on top of buildings. And the current disability access ramp to the tram stop could be removed, with access direct to the tram stop from the top level of parking.

    The current suggestions remove the car park next to the tram stop and have a garden-like area, which to me seems like it’s intended to help in selling the houses that would face on to it. When you get off a tram, you just want good access to your destination, not to have to walk past a garden and people’s houses. So better to shift the housing over the other side of Fairfax Road – or look elsewhere to build housing. It doesn’t have to be in the centre of Prestwich taking space that is better for community facilities and shops.

  6. Residential parking and vehicular access to properties

    Apart from the residential parking as shown in the concept design drawings in bays off Rectory Lane will there be any other parking for residents, whose properties are within the development? If so where will these be and how will they be accessed?

    Will there be any vehicular access to residential and business premises within the development on routes which appear on the plan as being pedestrianised, for example the row residential properties facing towards Bury New Road?

  7. If a multistorey car park is to be built it needs to safe for users, and minimize noise and nuisance for nearby residents.

    Unfortunately car parks have become a focus for criminal activities and anti social behaviours, for example the Lowry Outlet Car Park now have a reporting hotline for local residents after a number of incidents including dog fighting and car cruise meetings.

  8. I believe the carpark proposed is in the right area- away from the school on Rectory Lane- and from the Rectory Green apartments Parking spaces should be for those who need them from a health perspective. There should be greater emphasis on walking and cycling to schools and places around Prestwich village and the promotion of using public transport. I like the de-engineering proposal as it promotes far healthier lifestyles and is better for long-term health benefits..less car parking means less traffic. There needs to be reliable and better public transport facilities and hopefully will change traveling behaviour for the future.

  9. A traffic assessment is required because the current proposals will increase traffic on Fairfax Rd which is already an issue. Retailers feel some car parking provision is needed short stay to encourage people to stop and use the village centre, including disabled parking. Parking should be next to the community hub. At the same time there should be a move to discourage traffic , and consider not providing long stay car parking to be used for catching the Met, encouraging walking, cycling and other modes of transport, and access for people of limited mobility. Positioning of retail to facilitate deliveries need to be considered for independent businesses to thrive.

  10. Specific parking requirements aside (for health centre visitors and essential blue badge parking) I feel the quantity of parking spaces should be carefully considered and perhaps there should even be a proposal to gradually reduce the number of spaces, freeing up more green space, over the long term? Car ownership patterns may change in the future, our children and their children (who will see the biggest benefits of this regeneration) will likely see in the advent of driverless cars, car self driving car shares, an increase in electrified personal mobility and hopefully more health and well-being incentives to walk and cycle. The construction of a fixed, multi deck car park would be a sad indictment of our current reliance on the motor car – we should be thinking longer term and about future generations.

  11. Parking is already a massive issue for the local residents, who have requested permits but been turned down. Commuters park seven days a week on local roads, not only due to lack of parking spaces, which i presume will increase with a multi level car park, but many park on local streets to avoid the need to get stuck in the congested fairfax road/ rectory land areas. Having a multi level carpark will only add to the massive congestion issues we already suffer, and possibly push more cars onto local streets. Dont add additional housing in this already over populated area, and improve parking and access through different routes into the village area.

  12. Copied from PVNF WhatsApp Group

    Where will the decked car park be?
    • What number of levels and spaces will it have?
    • Suitability for those with limited mobility and shoppers with large/heavy bags?
    • Visual impact for OLOG Church and Highfield Road residents and passers-by?
    • Impact on Fairfax Road traffic management (which is already a congestion/pollution-causing problem)?
    • Where will the people living in the new housing park their vehicles?
    • The car parks at Whitefield and Radcliffe tram stations are ugly. What will the car park planned for Prestwich look like?
    • Where will the entry/exit be sited?
    • Will Rectory Lane or any other road be pedestrianised? Pedestrianising the road by St. Mary’s primary school will displace traffic to The Heys school on Heys Road.

  13. From PVNF FB Page

    We need to suggest that at least the same number of disabled parking places as are available now , are provided close to the village centre. Accessibility is going to be a joke otherwise.
    Ditch the massive car park but maintain some disabled bays.
    I wonder how the multistorey will impact the metro, at the moment Fairfax is 24/7 but rectory is closed till 9:30 to prevent Metrolink parking.
    Will this new carpark act like those in Radcliffe and Whitefield

    he difficulty is that many people with mobility issues find it very hard to get a blue badge so it’s not just about disabled parking spaces but about having some spaces nearer to the centre for those who don’t have blue badges but can’t walk very far. That’s tricky to monitor. Maybe they could move the Hub to the other side of the square so at least it’s nearer the car park but it’s still not going to be great for some people. It would also put the doctors nearer the car park.

  14. From PVNF FB Page

    There doesn’t appear to be any vehicle access to the shops either – how are they going to get deliveries?? When I asked about underground parking for residents in the apartments like the radius I was told this has not yet been considered and parking will be available in the multi-storey.
    Accessibility and adaptations. will need to be considered by JV.
    More generally I have real concern with directing all the vehicles to that pinch point on Fairfax which already can’t cope and then every shopper needing to cross the same road at the same point. We really need a huge improvement to this road/junction to make it safer and more accessible for everyone – that includes pedestrians.

  15. From PVNF FB Page

    It makes sense to keep the cars at the edge of the area and this location would reduce traffic turning right from Fairfax into Rectory Lane for Longfield carpark (and return traffic), as both carparks would be combined on Fairfax Rd. For those less mobile, perhaps additional disabled spaces could be added behind Farmfoods, retain some near the Met & add some behind the Halifax.

    I have limited mobility and hold a blue badge. I feel the distance from car park could be too much. I would not be thinking I will nip to the village fir a couple of items based on this plan.

    They should purchase the carpark at the back of farm foods and reserve it for disabled parking
    Maybe the tram car park could be disabled only

  16. Major concerns about the car park which is currently planned for Fairfax Rd. Traffic is already very busy on this road, so making this the only entrance/exit point for a car park is only going to make this worse. I like the suggestion of putting it where the current medical centre is and having a couple of different entrance/exit points to alleviate traffic build up.

  17. Free parking makes it easy for people to pop in and use the local business and makes the NHS services accessible for those who are less mobile. People won’t stop using cars if you make parking more difficult, they’ll just shop elsewhere, impacting local independent businesses. Reducing/charging for parking to reduce pollution is idealistic, unrealistic and short-sighted.

Comments are closed.