MarkT

Saturday 6th April

If people drive from the other end of East Dulwich to catch a train, they must be confident of finding a space to park near the station. Whether they are coming from Underhill Road or Canterbury surely it demonstrates there is not a critical shortage of parking space near the station.

nxjen, fair point about bias. This whole process is riddled with bias. You argue the petition is biased in favour of visitors voting against. On the other hand, the Council is claiming, at the start of the consultation 98 residents for and 0 against. We have been told that is totally unprompted, but does anyone write to the council out of the blue to demand the status quo? The on-line consultation questionnaire segregates residents from "visitors"; the latter includes everybody on the immediate border of the proposed CPZ. Is that a fair bias? By the way all those outsiders who have come in their cars have successfully done so to be be able to sign the petition, so they must have been able to find a parking space. We are constantly told that through-commuters, going on by train, are filling every available parking space, but I would think it a high risk venture to drive this far into town to park, and get to work on time, unless you had a good chance of finding a parking space.

But it's not even a concerted attack on private cars. The planning is chaotic. The rat runs criss-crossing the residential parts of East Dulwich are being opened up with double yellow lines everywhere to speed up the through traffic. Nothing is done to prioritise the buses. Blackfriars Road used to have a bus lane each way. The bicycles now have a dedicated lane, but the buses have to join the car queue. To really mess it up for the buses, cars have been given a passing lane at every bus stop, so they can get ahead and fill the road ahead of the bus.

Cgavassoni, You suggest a petition. At the moment this would be futile. The Council recently put up a proposal, aimed at reducing speed on Barry Road, and consulted the Community. The scheme included 5 traffic islands, creating slaloms to slow the traffic. The Council has shelved that proposal because, they say, there were objections against the loss of parking adjacent to those islands. This was announced at the recent Dulwich Community Council Meeting. The hall was packed for the agenda item on Controlled Parking Zones, and emptied immediately after that item; few stayed on to hear the outcome of the Barry Road speeding consultation. This raises a few questions. All those who had attended the meeting to shout for or against the CPZ ? do they care about safety on Barry Road? The blanket use of double yellow lines on dropped kerbs will remove loads of parking spaces in the proposed CPZ, including Barry Road, which the Council promises will improve traffic flow ? ie speed it up. Why back off from removing a few more to create a slalom to slow the traffic down? Does the Council care about safety on Barry Road, or elsewhere in the CPZ? Did the Council consider that slowing traffic on Barry Road while simultaneously inviting rat-running through the neighbouring streets might jeopardise the CPZ plan? Did the Council consider that the parking spaces lost to the proposed slaloms was an avoidable loss of income in the CPZ?

Aylwards, you write: "...less than 50% of households in the consultation zone have a vehicle". I think you've read the Council's figures backwards. The information given is that 42% of households have NO car. Therefore 58% of households DO have a car. Moving on to a different point from yours, the additional information is that the average number of cars per household is 0.7 - some households have more than one car. A large part of the consultation zone is terraced housing, in which the frontage of a single house is about the length of a single parking space. As many of the houses are divided into flats, ie more than one household per house, would it be unreasonable to estimate the number of cars per single fronted dwelling is closer to 1.0? That means that all the cars currently occupying kerb space across the consultation zone probably belong to residents, and all would qualify for a residents permit. The length of kerb available for parking will be considerably reduced with double yellow lines. The leaflet in the consultation pack - bottom of page 4 states: "Parking will be displaced into nearby uncontrolled roads" That would of course include cars eligible for a permit, but the owners are deferring the time when they will need to purchase it. Separately, you have asked our Councillor if the views of visitors can be taken into account. Well I think the Council should be open to the views of nearby residents, eg East of Barry Road, who are facing saturation parking, as a direct result of this scheme.

Abe, Were you responding to my post? Under that same heading "What are the advantages of having a parking zone for residents?" they add: "Residents of the zone are less likely to get a parking ticket: when the kerbside is full residents have to take such as double-parking, parking in front of a drop kerb or on the footway; all of these stop when there is free kerb space." Under that heading, it does seem to be a promise of increased parking space available to the permit holders. I've quoted the passage verbatim, including their grammar. The double yellow lines will certainly stop people parking in front of a dropped kerb, but it is currently legal to do so with the consent of the occupier [Road Traffic Regulation 1984 (Amended) Section 86(3)], so the removal of that freedom is hardly an advantage to residents. I think that goes beyond misleading. edited to add: I appreciate that there are some residents, eg close to a school, who are plagued by people parking without their consent who would individually wish for double yellow lines. I assume the Council could treat them as individual cases

Regarding the promise that permit holders will benefit from extra available parking space. In the CPZ pack, the 12 page Information booklet. Page 4: "What are the advantages of having a parking zone for residents? Evidence from other zones (eg Peckham Road South) has shown a decrease of 40% in parking in residential streets. Many of us have heard verbal promises that there will be 40% gain in available parking space but that is not what the above written statement actually says. It says ?decrease of 40% in parking?. If, eg, you put double yellow lines on 40% of kerbside in streets currently parked to capacity, you will decrease parking by 40%. I do not know actually what percentage of kerbside parking has been removed by double yellows in Peckham Road South, but they are making extremely misleading claims. A promise of a benefit in parking for residents is based on an assumption that a big percentage of current parkers are not residents. Is that evidence based? At the business consultation meeting, the powerpoint handout included a map showing "Average number of cars per household" For the East Dulwich CPZ it is 0.71. The area is mostly terraced houses many of which consist of flats. Therefore, the average number of cars per house is accordingly multiplied, each entitled to a Residents Permit. What therefore is the number of cars per house? A car parking space is 5.5 Metres. A single fronted Victorian terrace house has a street frontage of about 7 Metres, just over one car parking space. Asked directly will the Council sell more permits than there are spaces available, the officer first replied "No Yes" (or was it "Yes No"?) then said "well, not initially".

cella, you move the bins.

Eileen wrote "Hi Galileo - do you mean that if it is still very difficult to park in the evenings and into the night that a CPZ during the day isn?t much help? That is the problem in my street (Nutbrook in Bellenden). I was told by Joanne the Council project manager for this that they are probably mostly residents in streets nearby in Peckham town centre CPZ parking in our street rather than getting a permit as we are the closest without controls at the moment. We just won?t know until a CPZ is implemented if that is true since no one seems to have any evidence for who it is parks in our streets all day and all evening and all night..." So the Council CPZ team are promising a 40% gain in available parking spaces and telling us to look at the CPZ's already in place for proof of that promise. But now, the project manager is telling you, Eileen, that they have, at least in part, created that benefit within the existing CPZ by temporarily dumping on you. If you vote yes to a CPZ, you will magically get the 40% increase in vacant spaces, because all your problem parkers will go back home, a couple of streets away. So you lucky people currently enjoying empty steets in existing CPZs, once the next CPZ is in place, your neighbours will be back, paying for their permits and parking in front of your door like they always did.

"Hi MarkT, I think the statement the council receives no money form central government disingenuous." James, Please do not misquote me. I specifically wrote "money for highways". Is that grossly incorrect?

d.b. Do they need a consultation to plant a bit of Ivy? I'm not sure about the bus lane time change, but they do not need a consultation to install any of the other "Healthier Streets" Proposals and are doing so anyway, but funded out of other parts of the Council's expenditure. So why connect with the CPZ? Possibilities are that they hope to win more votes in favour of the CPZ, or, that by incorporating it in the CPZ, it can be financed out of the permit charges and fines. The Council repeatedly tells us that legally they cannot use any monies raised for anything but transport related things. eg the "Myth Busting" section in the consultation pack, under the heading "Southwark Council is just trying to make money" states "No. ... By law, any surplus on the parking account must be invested back into transport related improvements such as highway improvements and school crossing patrols". That is very misleading. First, they wrote question, including the word "just", so they can literally answer "NO" as they have other reasons. Second, as was carefully pointed out, by the Chair of Dulwich Community Council, the Council receives no money for highways from Central Government. That means that by raising money from the CPZ, they are saving on expenditure from other accounts within the Council's overall budget. Yes, they are (obviously) making money.

d.b No, it's between Whately Road and the traffic light pedestrian crossing. There are zig-zag lines so no parking close to the crossing and there are existing railings on the pavement.

Abe_froeman, Thanks, I see now that is described as a "low" green barrier. In my haste, I tripped over my own feet there. So people seated there will have their heads above the height of the barrier? I wonder how much the barrier will reduce Lordship Lane traffic noise and pollution.

Question 17 from the East Dulwich Consultation Questionnaire: "Do you agree with locations of... planted screens...? The locations will be subject to feasibility assessment (eg sight lines and safety)." The only location they propose for a planted screen is on Lordship Lane close to the Junction with Whately Road. The detail plan they include in the pack shows that it would start about 3 Metres from the corner of Whately Road. That?s a totally opaque wall of ivy, a couple of Metres high. I thought 7.5M is the minimum they will allow for double yellow lines at a junction. Does the screen proposal demonstrate that their sight line rules are completely arbitrary, or is just another example of how little thinking has gone into any of this? All of the Healthy Streets features can be installed with no need for a CPZ. Dulwich Community Council, for example, last week approved (in other locations) trees, seats, bicycle hangers and screens. Including spurious healthy features in this CPZ is surely a cynical ruse to get people to vote yes to the whole scheme. If you have voted Yes to the planted screen, it will almost certainly be ruled out in a feasibility assessment or they will reveal that their 7.5M rule for double yellow lines at junctions is completely arbitrary. MarkT

Reopen West Peckham thread? There are specific aspects relating to one or other CPZ, but I think the principles are common. I used examples from both to illustrate my concerns for community facilities; people living on the border are directly affected by both. I think keep one thread.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The extended yellows are surely only enforcing the > Highway Code stipulation about parking near > junctions? In which case cars should never have > been parking in those spaces in the first place. Rendel. Were you responding to Cardelia's post immediately above yours? Cardelia was writing about dropped kerbs, not junctions. The Highway code states that you must not park: ● where the kerb has been lowered to help wheelchair users highwaycodeuk.co.uk 129 AAATHE and powered mobility vehicles ● in front of an entrance to a property No mention of 2 Metre extensions there. By the way, a pedant, such as me, could argue that the 2nd bullet point bans parking in front of a pedestrian entrance, with no dropped kerb. I understand that national legislation specifies that you may park in front of a dropped kerb with the residents' permission. On the subject of junctions, the Highway code states that you must not park: ● opposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction, except in an authorised parking space Who authorises? The Council, which is why they can decide on 7.5M rather than 10, or indeed any smaller distance.

Zebedee, Hare seems to have answered your question on a new thread, yet another separate thread on this subject - "Be careful what you wish for"

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know people doubt the 40% figure, but go to any > area pre and post CPZ and you'll find this to be > the case. Parking massively increases compared to > the previous situation. Yet despite regular > repeated evidence to support this, people still > doubt this. A shame. "any area" Jimlad? I think the residents of Grove Park would disagree with you there. (see Charles Martel's Post of yesterday) But Jimlad, I'm trying to understand your motivation here. Having successfully campaigned for your CPZ so you can have a guaranteed space in front of your door, what's in it for you to have this imposed on my patch. At the moment you can park in front of my door for free, and yes there is space on my street to park. Why would you campaign to lose that freedom?

James. I should have quoted your sentence in full and not allowed you the opportunity to divert the question. You wrote: "Sporthuntor - You are of course totally correct that ~100 households is a tiny minority of the total affected area. But given that these are totally unprompted requests, it is quite significant." Those 100 requests are obviously prompted by Southwark Council. A quick search about parking on the internet takes you straight to this page: https://forms.southwark.gov.uk/ShowForm.asp?fm_fid= James, I was not questioning your doorstep style.

"But given that these are totally unprompted requests, it is quite significant." Totally unprompted? James, the Council continually publishes an invitation to write in if you want one in your area. How else do people know where to send their request? Also, we have the enthusiasts reporting on this Forumthat they have been campaigning for years in their areas to drum up this minimal level of unsolicited requests. At the meeting for local business, the officer initially stated that this CPZ consutation has been triggered by a "critical mass" of requests". This was immediately challenged, so the alternative explanation then given was that each year they count up the requests and plan their next CPZ where they have had the most requests. They are simply exploiting the domino effect.

let's be clear on what is meant by promise of 40% increase in parking. As I understand it they mean that if on a typical street before introduction of the CPZ you might have a choice of 10 available (ie currently empty) spaces to park your car, after introduction of the CPZ you would have choice of 14 spaces. In the marking out of the CPZ, there is a reduction in the total length of kerbside where someone could legally park. To achieve their promised 40% increase therefore, they must aim to deter, or outlaw, far more than 40% of pre CPZ parked cars. The post CPZ available length of kerbside allocated for Permit only or Pay to park is precisely measurable. The pre CPZ available length of kerbside is not. For example when parking close to a dropped kerb, do you encroach on the sloping end? Do you have the permission of the resident to park across the dropped kerb? (completely legal under national law) Where 2 dropped kerbs are close together, can you fit a small car in between. I do not know if the Council measures or counts parking spaces pre CPZ, though they produce photos to demonstrate a parking nightmare. I would think that they would not include dropped kerbs in such a measure of parkable kerbside, so their estimate of the loss would fall short of reality.

I think as long as there are a few vacant spaces in a street there is no parking problem. At the DCC meeting we were shown photos of an existing CPZ and told go visit see for yourself how well it is working - how empty the streets are. Well not empty enough for one incensed resident of an existing CPZ, who complained that club cars were parking there. Now I thought club cars were the good guys. Well Southwark, you did promise them empty streets.

Another scheme being considered in total isolation is the speeding controls on Barry Road, which include the possibility of fixed or average speed cameras, with automatic penalties. Previous CPZ reports have stated that a ?critical benefit? of a CPZ is improved traffic flow through the area. That of course is an obvious result of all the additional and extended double yellow lines. What an invitation to the rat runners to duck and dive their way at unmonitored speeds through our residential streets. When the Barry Road consultation was launched, the East Dulwich CPZ proposal was inadvertently revealed ahead of its intended launch. At a public meeting on the Barry Road proposal I put those concerns to the officers. They denied all knowledge of the CPZ. They would not discuss it - the Barry Road scheme could not affect surrounding areas. Interesting that it is the same individual officers now presenting the CPZ. Of course these schemes affect each other and must be considered together.

James, concerning the proposed CPZs, you made the following statement on this Forum a while ago: ?The consultation will identify what appetite there is for controlled parking in different areas. The consultation area is quite big but the results will not be all-or-nothing. In other words, if controlled parking is popular in some areas but not in others then the former can have controlled parking and the latter not.? Your statement has been quoted, as authoritative, at least twice in postings on this forum, but the evidence that previous CPZ Decisions were indeed all or nothing leads some of us to doubt that this one will indeed be any different. James, can confirm/clarify whether sub sections of the proposed CPZ might be excluded on a popular vote?