MarkT

Reg, sorry, I misread your query. (I thought you were referring to the consultation pack) The last paragraph on page 3, quoted by Charles Martel, also applies to all the other maps MarkT,

Reg, there's an "overview map" which includes the key, and shows the layout of maps 1-5

The "no return rule" will only work if the maximum parking period is less than the CPZ hours. E.g CPZ operates 12-2pm; maximum pay to park time 1 hour. If you are allowed to park for the full controlled period, you can park all day and pay by phone. There is however another problem. Some of the pay to park bays, e.g. by the shops at the North section of Melbourne Grove, are also open to resident permit holders. With the loss of parking space from double yellow lines, residents will, no doubt, occupy those dual purpose bays. A resident weekend driver could block a dual purpose bay for the whole week, leaving no space for shoppers. Short term, however that may not come to light. Residents do not all immediately buy their permits. Why buy a permit if you can park a few streets away for free. When the CPZ starts, the Council can take nice photos to show 40% reduction in parked cars to prove it "works", with neighbouring streets parked to capacity, so the council can take lovely photos to show the nightmare of uncontrolled parking.

So they are going to consult "regular users i.e. dog walkers" Is that really their exhaustive list of regular users? Or, did they mean "e.g" dog walkers? If so, is that their best example?

nxjen, does it make you feel good to spoil someone's bit of fun? If the date is significant, then the o.p. is somewhat obscure. However if it is exactly as it appears, then you have clearly fooled yourself. Give yourself a round of applause. MarkT

The consultation has been extended, to 6 weeks from today, so cannot be implemented yet. I think that wherever parking charges are being introduced in Southwark, payment is by phone only so there will be no payment machines, but there will be signs giving instructions for payment.

Alice, do you have a pond pump? The spawn may have drifted. Frogs tend to spawn in the shallows, I guess there is most algae for food for the hatchlings close to the surface, but if the spawn has drifted into deeper water it would sink. If so can you move it into shallow water, perhaps anchored around some marginal plants?

He also claimed he is using the power of his mind to ensure that ?Jeremy Corbyn never gets the keys to Number 10 Downing Street?. ?I will ensure that they bend out of all proportion to ensure that he never takes up residence there,? he wrote. Does he mean the front door key to No 10? There's no keyhole. MarkT

The consultation has been extended till 13th May. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=6725 The consultation will include - Engagement with specific user groups to gain an understanding of impact of proposed measures on those with disability and on regular users i.e. dog walkers to ensure these users have an opportunity to engage and provide their views." Note, not "e.g. dog walkers" but i.e. dog walkers". I think anybody who uses the Francis Peek Centre or whose children play football or other organised activities in our local parks might need to respond. Also anybody who has difficulty walking, as East Dulwich is prominent on the Council's map of "Open Space Deprivation" which shows distances from the nearest park. The Decision Maker is: Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Culture, Leisure, Equalities and Communities ? Councillor Rebecca Lury To deputise for the Leader of the Council in his absence by representing the borough at external events, within the council and when necessary chairing cabinet. To improve the council?s engagement with all Southwark?s communities, especially those who are hardest to reach. To be responsible for strengthening the voluntary and community sector, supporting volunteering across the borough. To promote leisure and sport in the borough and increase the quality of the borough?s parks and green spaces. With the Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Public Health to increase physical activity and resident use of all our park and leisure spaces. To champion equality and diversity across the borough and be a champion for Southwark?s varied and diverse communities. The cabinet member will have particular responsibility for:  strengthening and working with Southwark?s voluntary and community sector  community councils and community engagement  relationships with faith communities  Southwark diversity standard  equalities and equal opportunities  volunteering and volunteer champions  civic issues  cultural strategy  libraries  events  free theatre visits for primary children  working with organisations in the borough?s thriving culture communities  increasing access to arts and culture including for vulnerable groups  parks  trees  biodiversity  performance of the council?s leisure contractor  leisure investment  working with grassroots leisure communities  play and leisure activities for young people  swimming and gym use  working with grassroots sport communities  promoting sport and increasing physical activity  youth centres. Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Public Health ? Council I don't see i.e. providing car parking for dog walkers in that job description. MarkT

I sent the following a couple of weeks ago to the Decision Maker, Councillor Rebecca Lury, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for culture, leisure, equalities, and communities. I copied it to Richard Livingstone who decides on CPZ's and to all our Dulwich Community Councillors. MarkT An open letter in response to charge for car parking within Southwark parks I am concerned about the proposal to charge for carparking in Southwark parks, particularly in relation to my two nearest parks, Peckham Rye and Dulwich. You state that the car parks provide a service for those who ?choose to drive?. The Report gives no consideration of ?need to drive? except forTo Councillor Rebecca Lury, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for culture, leisure, equalities, and communities, Blue Badge holders. For some with disabilities who do not qualify for a Blue Badge, distance from home to the park might be a key consideration. In your Community Impact Statement you state there will be no disproportionate affect on any community group, but you seem not to have considered Open Space Deprivation. I attach a screen shot of the map on page 44 of Southwark?s Open Space Strategy, showing distances from the nearest open space, with large areas of Open Space Deprivation in the South of the Borough, in particular the densely populated part of East Dulwich which is equally badly served by Peckham Rye and Dulwich Park. I see no mention in the Report of organised activities in the parks. In this respect my local parks may be no different from others across the Borough. In Peckham Rye and Dulwich Park, large numbers of young people routinely take part in organised sports. Neither does your Report mention that the Dulwich carpark directly serves the Francis Peek Community Centre with its range of community activities. Organisers of these activities need to bring equipment and therefore need to drive. Typically, any specific activity will have a far larger catchment area than a generic green space. Leaders and participants therefore need to travel, and some need to come by car. Community Centres form a borough-wide network. These community activities are very sensitive to cost and Community centres have to keep their charges low. Additional costs of parking might make the difference in the viability of some activities. Again, I think you need to review your Community Impact Statement. I understand from the Report that the proposal relates only to ?off-street? car parks, and only inside the parks ?within their boundary?, and therefore comes within your remit for a Single Member Decision. I am surprised, therefore that under Key Issues ? Rationale, the Report states that revenue made from the introduced parking charges can be re-invested in ?Highways maintenance and road improvements projects?, while the possibility of using the funding for the parks is mentioned later in the Report as a Community Impact afterthought, that the parking charge ?could potentially serve as an addition stream of revenue for use for the betterment of the parks.? As the profit from this proposal will be more than ?150,000 per annum, I would hope that a benefit to the parks and their associated activities would be higher on your agenda. This Report acknowledges the probable result of this proposal of increased parking pressure for residents in nearby streets. Such repercussions cut both ways. The proposal for Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ) in East Dulwich is also a Single Member Decision, but proposes specific parking bays directly associated with a range of community facilities, which surely come under your remit. I ask you to look closely at those CPZ plans and consider the risk they pose to the provision of services by those facilities. According to National Statistics, local car ownership is 0.71 cars per household, and streets are currently parked to comfortable capacity by residents while accommodating the necessary parking for community facilities. The proposal involves the loss of many parking spaces to double yellow lines, particularly notable in the streets surrounding the East Dulwich Community Centre. The resulting parking space will be insufficient for the current resident owned cars and planners of the CPZ have stated that Parking will be displaced. The bays to be placed in front of community facilities will be available for payment, but also will be open to residents. The scheme therefore will allow residents to block the parking spaces in front of every community facility. Indeed, since the CPZ planners have not denied that they might sell more Resident Permits than there are spaces available, residents may have no alternative but to occupy all the spaces intended for community facilities. For those who need to drive to a community building, once the CPZ is in place, even if they are able to pay, they will not be able park anywhere in the vicinity. This Report states that charging is an effective way of reducing demand for parking spaces. Perhaps so, but it discriminates only according to ability and willingness to pay. It will favour the lifestyle-drivers and will likely force out the most financially vulnerable services in our community centres and reduce access to our parks to those who most need it. The first point in your Report as the ?Rationale? is that ?Off-street car parking within our parks provides a small but appreciated service to the low proportion of visitors who choose to drive by car to our parks.? I am sure you intend that as a simple statement of fact. It does however read more like an intention that your plans will favour a lifestyle-driver elite.

I would hope anyway that the Council would be doing this for reasons other than that people want it. Is this supposed to be aimed at greater social benefit? Less pollution? if so they should be considering whether a CPZ leads to fewer vehicles moving through the Zone or through the Borough. or whether the planted screen outweighs the loss of front gardens and hedges to off street parking. Safer streets? if so they should be open to argument and gathering evidence on the affect of CPZ on the speed of rat-runners. Reducing need to travel? Then they should be considering the affect on local business - shops, tradespeople. Community wellbeing? carers, special needs, improving access to community facilities. Harmony? if people vote yes in the hope that they can park in front of their door, will they be happy when they discover their streets are even more filled with their neighbours vehicles, with less space to park for all the yellow lines. (0.71 cars per household) I would hope that good reasons from a numerical minority should "outweigh" a majority of wanties simply voting yes. MarkT

frogspawn in my garden sink today, MarkT

The Council is probably keeping quiet about the Quietway until they've got the CPZ agreed. If people knew that so much parking will be lost to the Quietway they'd probably vote against the CPZ. The plans for slowing traffic in Barry Road have been shelved because they would remove too many parking spaces around the proposed islands. Clearing all the clutter of parked cars from Crystal Palace Road, while simultaneously increasing the bus lane restrictions in Lordship Lane. will also turn CPR into rat run and a race track for cars as well as bikes, so people might have realised that the CPZ promise of safer streets is a nonsense.

ED_moots. No I don't think you can ask us not to interrogate you on the specific issues you raise. Only 98 people demanded this CPZ in advance, no doubt all members of your association and not even a majority of that. Leading up to the deadline, photos were posted on twitter and on the Green Party website of apparently empty streets "when the commuters go home" claiming to demonstrate the overwhelming problem of commuter parking within your streets. The Deputy Leader of the Council made public statements that the primary problem to be solved across the CPZ is commuter parking. This was the focus of the press coverage. Everybody knew that the CPZ would take no account of need to travel; would have a damaging affect on local community facilities, local small tradespeople and shops and, with the draconian use of double yellow lines, would outlaw any neighbourly access to the kerbside in front of dropped kerbs. Everybody knew that the CPZ would open up the streets to rat-running. Everybody knew that "Healthy Streets" was a ruse to get the green vote. Everybody knew that gardens would be paved over and hedges ripped out. Everybody knew that you do not need a CPZ to get bicycle parking. Everybody knew that there would be a net loss of parking space. Everbody knew that resident owned cars accounted for almost all the current parking, except apparently residents in your few streets. The day following the deadline you write to the council suddenly realising you would not have enough space for the residents of your streets and asking for special rules on dropped kerbs. Your lack of concern not only for visitors to the Medical Centre, but for anyone other than your residents is apparent from your demand that all Pay spaces are also available for residents, thereby allowing your members to block every space.

Here's a page from Southwark's Open Space Strategy, a map of distances from the nearest open space. White means a long way away. See the white space in the middle - that is East Dulwich

Thanks James, I see that Paragraph 3 of the report states it refers to: "parks in the borough of which six have existing off-street carparks within their boundary". So yes it is parks. The speed of this is outrageous. Cabinet report dated 25th February to be implemented 1st April. And the Council website states that the Decision may be taken any time after 5th March. That's one week to inform that list of consultees, by the way ignoring the public in general, then those consultee organisations have to organise meetings or whatever to form a view and respond. To be implemented by 1st April they no doubt have contracts already signed for the works.

Are the driveways and car parks, located within the parks, part of the Council highways? If they are part of the parks, surely any money raised can and should be spent on parks. If they are part of the highways network any money raised must be spent only on highways, but there is no obligation for the Council to make a profit on this. It is the Council's choice to milk the parks. Across the Borough, the start-up costs will be ?50.5K, income per annum ?200k. If there are particular problems eg the Report mentions commuters (is there any evidence of this?) then the charges could operate for a couple of hours in the day. But If this is a highways issue. why is it being decided by the Cabinet member for Culture, Leisure, Equalities and Communities? Whether or not it comes under their remit, Deputy Leader Councillor Rebecca Lury and Fiona Dean, Director of Leisure, should be ashamed of themselves.

Will the CPZ bring happiness to Derwent Grove? They are voting yes but they say: "the road suffers from a high number of cars belonging to residents, leading to a concern of whether, even with a CPZ, there will be sufficient parking spaces for the residents." But a week ago, Derwent residents published photos to show a near empty street when the commuters had gone home: https://twitter.com/edstnparking https://www.southwarkgreenparty.org.uk/east_dulwich_parking_zone Car ownership right across the CPZ area is 0.71 cars per household. The CPZ will remove parking spacse with extra double yellow lines. The Derwent concerns might be shared in many streets in the zone. The proposed East Dulwich CPZ is 1.5 km from The plough to the station. Some residents will drive that distance to park in Derwent Grove. They will have no visible permits.

The first draft of the Dulwich SPD (special Planning Document?) put out for consultation stated "Dulwich is leafy and green." There were protests, so the 2nd version was "Dulwich is mostly leafy and green". When the Council produced plans to build flats on the playground of the East Dulwich Community Centre, The "Save" campaign used a Council map, from the draft Southwark Plan, of "Open Space Deprivation" which showed circles of 5 minute walking distance from the nearest open space. The Community Centre lay in the space between Dulwich Park, Peckham Rye and Goose Green - the largest area of such open space deprivation in the Borough. In the final Southwark Plan, the circles had been redrawn to 10 minute walking distance. Suddenly East Dulwich was well served by 3 parks.

frogs have arrived in my butler sink mini pond.

Tree felling by roundabout Red Post Hill.

That's the email she gave on the handout at the business consultation meeting. The main consultation pack gives: phone 020 7525 0127 email highways@southwark.gov.uk

gkb, I suggest email the lead officer: joanna.lesak@southwark.gov.uk I assume, as you live outside the zone, you did not receive a paper copy of the questionnaire. Too late now to post it anyway.

"The problem around East Dulwich station has been well documented. [twitter.com]" Certainly the streets around the station get fully parked up, and I believe the residents' reports of commuters hovering in wait for a space to be vacated. The mytery to me is that photo of Derwent Grove, half empty, to show when the commuters have gone home - Sat 8.30? That must be a rare shot. Saturday 2 days ago it was fuller than that. I took a stroll on Derwent Grove last night at 10.30pm, when most residents would be home, and the presence of commuters would be most unlikely. I found it almost fully parked up, with space for 2 small cars. There are I think 4 dropped kerbs. The CPZ would remove 2 metres each way, so that would be 4 parking spaces gone. It looks like residents of Eg Derwent Grove might get rid of long distance commuters, but they'll be competing with neighbours instead.

If you exclude long distance commuters and the spaces are then filled by commuters coming from the other side of East Dulwich within the proposed CPZ, are the people who live close to the station hoping for a very small CPZ?