Rockets

Does anyone have a contact at the SOS campaign? If so, could they PM me the details?

James, Thank you for outlining the process, I think what we are interested in are your views on the proposal as it seems a large percentage of the residents within your ward, that you represent, are against it. You rightly point out that this is a hugely contentious issue, namely because people feel the council is trying to railroad this through without considering the consequences. Let me be more specific: - the consultation document is full of ?facts? that upon further scrutiny do not stand up and are misleading at best - parking pressure increased after the council extended double yellow lines, seemingly only in the CPZ area, which many interpreted as an uneccessary and unwarranted move that acted as a pre-cursor and catalyst to justifying the CPZ - little consideration has been given to the impact on Lordship Lane - the distribution of the consultation documents has been shambolic at best and how can anyone guarantee that spending even more money will resolve the issues? - given the distribution issues will the significant numbers of signatures collected by local shopkeepers of people against the CPZ be considered? - why is the council spending tax payers money on this consultation after receiving just 95 complaints about parking over a 3 year period - which represents just over 1% of the local population? - is it correct that you are suggesting the highest permissible business rate for local traders? - you talk about additional drop in meetings but are the views of those who attend going to be taken into account and will you assure us that they will be more professionally managed? Oh and many of us don?t care what your political leanings; we just want you to represent the views of those being impacted by these proposals.

It may have taken Southwark 3 years to collect between 98 and 117 requests yet in a matter of weeks it looks like the Lordship Ship lane shop keepers have collected thousands of signatures of those against it. I wonder if the council will consider those objections.

The Nappy Lady Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > At the local business meeting with the council the > other day they told us they were collecting > anonymous data from mobile phones to work out > where people who park are coming from and if they > are then commuting into town etc!!! > > You see they all seem to be saying different > things at different meetings. > > There?s no reason they can?t implement a 2 hour > free parking with times ticket from a machine to > deter commuters and free residents permits. But > they need to generate revenue. > > Don?t be fooled. I would be interested to know whether the council HAS collected data (also where does one get such data, wouldn?t you have to opt in to sharing such data if it is to be used for a consultation as you are basically tracking people?s movements?) if so why are they not sharing it, if they ARE collecting the data you have to ask whether they have wasted tax payers money on a consultation without actually previously determining whether there is an issue or what the issue is. Some of the cynics amongst might suggest they are now trying to retrospectively come up with the reason for the CPZ. This whole thing is starting to stink.

James, What are your thoughts on the CPZ discussion that has been ongoing for some time now on this forum and throughout your ward. Your ward is the one most directly impacted and the whole consultation process seems to be utterly chaotic and geared towards justifying a decision that has already been made. Today, for example, I spoke to a shop owner that had not received any of the consultation documents nor did they know that there had been a meeting for shop owners earlier this week. I told him about the drop in session today and he was going to make his way there. It appears not everyone?s voice is being heard. It seems there has not been the proper due diligence given to this project, the consultation documents are full of inaccurate and misleading claims that have no bearing on reality and many are concerned that the council is trying (again) to railroad plans through that do not properly address the unique nature of Lordship Lane and that these plans will ultimately damage the uniqueness of the area we all call home. There is a lot of local opposition to these plans - the long lists of signatures in most shops along the Lane attest to this - and the fear is that the council will just power ahead with a plan that seems motivated purely by revenue generation. What is your position?

roywj - most of the traders I have spoken to on the Lane are worried about their livelihoods not their ability to pay and display to get to work. And many local residents are resisting as they see this for what it is - a tax and something the council has been plotting to action for years. To suggest the CPZ will not affect trade is an assumption at best. And the council's own research showed that the pull of Lordship lane was greater than both the SE22 and SE15 postcodes and 22% of people had driven - and these were people interviewed shopping on the Lane. In another report the council said that Lordship Lane was increasingly becoming a hub behind only London Bridge and Walworth Road for it's catchment area - and since then the catchment area is likely to have increased with places like the Picturehouse and M&S opening. What if the council introduces day long zone operation thus forcing drivers to use the council's pay and display machine - which on the plans are few and far between? What if just 10% of those people give up coming to the Lane? A 5 - 10% decrease in footfall on Lordship Lane could be catastrophic to local businesses.

I see lots of people quoting the success of freeing up parking spaces in places like DKH, VIllage Way or the toastrac but the problem in those areas is clearly commuter parking. The challenges along Lordship Lane are multi-faceted and a combination of commuter parking and people using the Lane to shop. And you can't solve one without impacting the other. Lordship Lane is a thriving business street and it does attract people from distances further than walking distance away so the concerns voiced by so many here are legitimate. I do feel sorry for people who find trouble parking near their homes but voting for the CPZ on that benefit alone is short-sighted - everyone needs to look at the wider implications - I did chuckle to myself when I read the comment on someone boycotting the stores in the Save our High Street campaign! What seems to have been glossed over is the fact that parking became noticeably worse after the council extended the double-yellows lines to the maximum they could as a pre-cursor to helping justify a CPZ. I remember James Barber calling that out as wholly unnecessary at the time and it was clear it was a trojan horse and part of their long-term programme to get a CPZ in East Dulwich. If you approach their current plans with that in mind you can start to see through them. Look beyond the made-up headline benefits, scratch a little deeper and ask some difficult questions and you will find they don't have the answers. Speaking of which does anyone know how the traders consultation meeting with the council went?

Good points bonaome - the council throw these figures around without anything of any substance to back them up. As I posted previously what we do know from the council's own study in 2015 ( [www.southwark.gov.uk) is that 22% of those surveyed on Lordship Lane had driven and many had come from postcodes further than SE22 and SE15. And since 2015 I very much suspect the catchment area and footfall for the Lane has increased with the introduction of the M&S, cinema and other shops and the local independent traders are benefiting from this. What we don't know is what impact the CPZ will have on that % but you don't have to be a council planner to determine that it will drop and will have a detrimental impact on the independent stores. Unfortunately the council are trying to push ahead with their plans (again) without taking the time (again) to understand the particular challenges of Lordship Lane and East Dulwich and seem to be hanging their prospectus on the basis that "because we have put CPZs everywhere else it is causing problems in East Dulwich and West Peckham so you should have one" but it should probably read "East Dulwich the cash cow we have yet to milk"!

I was positively encouraged by both the huge numbers of people who have signed the various petitions in the shops of Lordship Lane at the weekend and the passion with which the shopkeepers are trying to fight the CPZ.

In 2015 Southwark published a report on the high streets in the area and it's study on Lordship Lane found that 22% of people on Lordship Lane travelled by car and that it was the second highest % for car arrival after Walworth Road. More snippets from the report below: Over half of the respondents (57%) on Lordship Lane lived in local postcodes, SE22 (29%), which surrounds the high street, SE15 (17%) just to the north, and SE12 (11%) which is some way away. The remainder lived in 29 further and widely dispersed postcodes, spread largely but not exclusively from around South East London. 5.2 How did they get here? The high street is well connected for buses travelling through South East London almost a third had travelled to Lordship Lane by bus, ten points above the average for the survey. Rather fewer had walked, which could indicate either greater distance or more shopping was involved. Table 11 helps to confirm the picture of the typical visitor however, since almost a quarter had arrived by car, twice the average and with the exception of Walworth road, the highest proportion for any Southwark high street. The picture is one of a local population using the centre because it is convenient and easy to access, but with rather more than expected choosing to use a car to get there and back. I do hope someone presents this report back to Southwark to ask them how the CPZ might impact these numbers and I cannot believe that given they conducted this research they have given little consideration to address the impact on the Lane form the CPZ (other than the ludicrous headline stat that people who walk to the high street spend 40% more than those who drive - which incidentally comes from a report commissioned by TFL on high-street improvements like pedestrianisation so seems to have been plucked at random to help justify their proposals): Anyway, the council's report is below. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/1922/2.2.11%20Lordship_Lane_Web_Report.pdf

Our road is not currently in the suggested CPZ zone but parking can be problematic but I would always put my personal inconvenience over the potential to kill Lordship Lane and other facilities that will be impacted by this. The process seems to be neglecting the fact that Lordship lane is quite unique in that the parking problems are caused by a combination of commuter parking, people using the lane and multi-vehicle ownership and the CPZ solution the council is suggesting cannot address all of those factors without detrimental harm to the hubs of our community.

And if not, why are "they" having another consultation? Because you got the answer wrong (cf 'People's Vote') Spot on! And because they have had time to add double yellows everywhere to make parking even worse to help justify their stance. Just remember, the CPZ is not for our benefit but theirs......

Galileo, it is a turn of phrase.... As I said previously I used to live on Chesterfield Grove and am well aware of the challenges of finding a space near to my home but never did I drive around for 20 minutes trying to find one. That reads like another council claim! A CPZ is a tax and per ali2007s comments above yours perhaps we should heed the warnings of those who have lived through it and ponder what people not bothering to drive to the Lane will mean. Interestingly to ali2007's point on traffic wardens the council is promising more enforcement in their documentation per the below: "Enforcement of short stay bays will be improved, as visitors will need to register for pay-byphone, and would therefore ensure a higher turnover of short-stay visitors" So more tickets for the slightest indiscretion.... If you want to put your parking convenience before the good of your thriving local community so be it but there are many of us who think the fabric of Lordship Lane and East Dulwich is worth protecting.

I think Tash B is suggesting people should park on the other side of Barry Road along Goodrich Road and then walk to the clinic. But I think Tash B is missing the point that people visiting the clinic often are unable to walk any distance at all which is why they have to visit the clinic in the first place. Same with ESPH that does a lot of rehab for patients from various hospitals in the area. Hopefully now people are starting to realise how much of a negative impact these plans will have on our area and our community and will change their minds about whether they are getting excited about "being able to park in front of my house"!

Being able to find a parking space within a short walk of your house and being able to find that space in a short space of time. That is the benefit. Yes Worldwiser - that is the benefit to YOU. And Chuckd gets a space less than 5 minutes from their house to the detriment of the people trying to use the leisure centre (you can apply the same thing for the doctors/shops or any other public facility in the area). And the information the council shares on where they have claimed victories with CPZs are in areas that were just commuter parking. In fact, if you speak to anyone in areas around the Walworth Road they will say CPZs have had a massively detrimental impact on the shops in the area. I think a lot of people are asking whether that is a price worth paying just so you don't have to spend 5 minutes looking for a parking space. I used to live on Chesterfield Grove and yes, I used to get frustrated when I couldn't find a parking space, but I was sanguine enough to realise it was the price I paid for living next to such an amazing place as Lordship Lane.

I wonder whether our elected representatives have anything to say on the matter? Apparently, a lot of LL shopkeepers have been trying to contact them to voice their concerns but they are being a bit, ahem, aloof....

Galileo, I feel for you living next to the station and agree that it must be awful but the proposals will not deal with your problem and your sister in law will likely still end-up parking streets away. I don?t know what road you live on but do look at the number of non-resident bays on your road and work out whether if one or two other visitors are in the area, or commuters phoning from wherever they work to pay for parking, whether she will get a space. Also, will the CPZ operate at weekends?

I wonder whether the Dulwich Medical Centre, or users therein, have any thoughts on the lack of non permit holder parking bays near the surgery? Surely this impacts the users of the surgery as many aren?t able to walk distances to get to see their doctor? Does anyone know whether the resident permits will be zoned - most CPZs are road by road? Also, I hope residents on roads like Silvester, Melbourne Grove, Trossachs etc don?t ever have visitors.....distinct lack of non permit bays there and if the few that are there are filled they may have some struggles to park. The whole council document reads like it was put together as part of a student planning project, with ludicrous claims presented as facts that may, or probably most likely not, be applicable to what will happen in East Dulwich. It?s like the stat that people who walk to the high street spend 40% more.....do they really? Can anyone find anything to back up the council?s claims as there seems to be nothing more than the headline on their website? When we walk to the lane we spend less as we are limited by what we can carry all the way home. I do hope common sense prevails and this doesn?t proceed.

I've heard a lot of utter rubbish about CPZ, such > as the idea its a tax - which it isn't, they are > mandated by law to spend the money raised on > parking, and if you have evidence to the contrary > then I strongly recommend you contact the Police. > The 'no space will be there' is just utterly > untrue without a shred of credible evidence to > support this assertion. Of course it is a tax. It is a well known tactic by councils to generate revenue to fund other areas of council activities by asserting charges on people who, invariably, already pay tax to fund those said services. Southwark council have been circling around East Dulwich like vultures seeing the regeneration of the area and thinking - how can we get a piece of that - and the CPZ is their vehicle and the yellow-line extension was phase one of their grand plan - completely unwarranted but designed to create parking pressure. Trust me this project started in the council with someone saying - go and work out the revenue from a CPZ in East Dulwich. As a lot of people have pointed out there seems to be a blatant disregard for how much impact this will have on the Lane but then, as someone so wonderfully stated previously, perhaps because Theodore and his muumy want to shop in M&S that that counts for nothing!!!

People are missing the point - this does nothing to alleviate parking congestion - it merely provides the council with a revenue stream - and in the process harms the fabric of what makes LL and the surrounding areas so great. Look closely at what is being suggested: - paid-for bays that you can pay for from your phone. This does nothing to alleviate commuter traffic as most commuters will probably pay the few pounds for the controlled hours via their phone. Make it a machine payment only and the problem goes away. - the paid-for bays can also be used by permit holders meaning areas such as the leisure centre could have no parking spaces for anyone looking to drive who doesn't live within that zone. And to comments such as "The irony of driving to the leisure centre!" the catchment area is much broader than just up to, say, a mile in any direction - you may live close enough to do that but many people are aren't able to, or have the time to, mobilise themselves or their flock as efficiently as you can. That shouldn't preclude them from being able to use the facilities which these proposals likely will. CPZs do nothing to reduce car ownership it merely allows local councils to tax people for it. I am sure those banging the "stop using cars" drum will be the first to start mourning the loss of shops and outlets on LL. And their protestations on why and how people should use/not use their cars are not realistic. The Lane has prospered because it provides options other than supermarkets and many people drive to the Lane to use those shops and facilities and will likely think twice about doing so with the CPZ. This creates risk for the businesses on the Lane and I, for one, don't want to lose what makes where we live so great. If it's not broken, don't fix it.

The more you look at the consultation documents the more you realise how flawed the council's approach is to this. Their recent extending of double-yellow lines in the area was designed to create parking congestion to help them justify this plan which is nothing more than an East Dulwich tax for the residents and enterprises who live here. The council is cashing in on the thriving community around Lordship Lane and I cannot see how this will do anything other than damage the uniqueness of the area. East Dulwich currently works and the council is meddling for their own purposes and have been after this pot of gold for years - I do hope everyone sees through it. I will make sure I attend the drop clinic to ask some pertinent questions as when you look at the proposals it is as ludicrous as Lambeth's Loughborough junction traffic programme which, thankfully, fell flat on its face a year or so after the council implemented it. For example, has anyone looked at the plan around the leisure centre - from what I can see from the proposals I cannot see how that will work as many people, especially those with small families, drive to the leisure centre and these restrictions will make it impossible to do so (I also chuckled as the ludicrous number of disabled bays which recently appeared in front of the leisure centre are not marked on the proposals - probably because they have served their purpose in creating parking choke points - along with the extended double yellows). I do hope people don't put their own selfish, well I want to be able to park outside my house arguments to one side and realise that if the council gets away with this Lordship Lane and the surrounding areas will be negatively impacted. Local traders are already mobilising and I suggest others do too, before it is too late.

Has anyone noticed the two huge disabled bays that just appeared in front of the Dulwich gym on Crystal Palace Road? Now I appreciate the need for disabled people to have easy access to the gym but will they be removing the bay about 25 yards further up the road that rarely has any vehicle parked in it and are we to interpret the size of the bays that Challenger tanks are now the vehicle of choice for the disabled? Yet another reduction in parking spaces and another small council-initiated step towards an unwarranted and unnecessary CPZ....

Definite No from me. There is already parking pressure around LL due to the increased length of double-yellow lines imposed by the council and this will soon begin impacting local retailers and a CPZ will only make it worse.

Big thanks to James Barber for escalating this within the council and getting some action: bin was finally cleared today.

James, Many thanks - I will email you on this.