Search
Generic filters

Explore private non-residential parking restrictions

Summary

  • Just under a fifth of respondents disagree with policy H (explore private non-residential parking restrictions) the highest levels of disagreement across all policies
  • Disagreement is over 10% for all subgroups, but is highest amongst those aged 45-54, residents living in PO3, PO6 and living outside of Portsmouth and those with a disability or long-term illness (22%-28%)
  • Of those disagreeing with policy H, 28% do so because they feel a workplace parking levy will damage business and put off visitors
  • Just over a fifth (22%) disagree with the policy because it penalises the workforce and employers
  • Just under a fifth (19%) disagree because they think people cannot afford to pay such a levy and that it is a money-making scheme for the council
  • 9% think sustainable transport is insufficient or unsuitable, that the policy won’t work, and that it is anti-motorist and restrictive

Who disagrees with policy H?

Base: (top to bottom) | Total sample: 1,250 | Age: 108, 152, 216, 286, 247, 91 | Sex: 563, 507 | Postcode: 114, 266, 131, 311, 159, 124, 58 | Disability: 230, 817

This chart shows the proportion of respondents who disagree with policy H (Explore private non-residential parking restrictions):
19% of the total sample.
13% of those aged under 35, 20% of those aged 35-44, 23% of those aged 45-54, 18% of those aged 55-64, 13% of those aged 65-74, and 11% of those aged 75 and over.
19% of males and 13% of females.
18% of those in PO1, 15% of those in PO2, 23% of those in PO3, 18% of those in PO4, 13% of those in PO5, 25% of those in PO6, and 28% of those living externally to PO1-PO6.
22% of those with a disability and 16% of those without a disability.

Why do you disagree with policy H?

Base: Respondents who disagree with policy H (233)
wdt_ID Key themes Percentage (%)
1 Will damage businesses / put off visitors e.g. recruitment harder, visitors will go elsewhere 28
2 Penalising the workforce and employers 22
3 People can't afford it / money-making scheme for the council 19
4 Sustainable transport insufficient / not suitable or convenient for all 9
5 Won't work / not clear / contradictory 9
6 Anti-motorist / restrictive 9
7 Won't help with resident parking 8
8 Will displace parking to surrounding streets 5
9 Generally negative 4
10 Have public transport incentives e.g. discounted passes, dedicated P&R commuting route 3
11 Encourage businesses to let residents use their car parks out of office hours instead 2
12 Other e.g. not needed, not in the council's remit, ban student vehicles/more housing, lobby the government for funding, stealth congestion charge 6
13 No relevant comment / no comment 23