E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[joobjoob]

The council are consulting on a CPZ around the station, see the link below.

This has crept up on us and as we live in Nutfield rd we will be hugely affected by this... Has any road bordering this CPZ been contacted by the council or formally told about this proposal? We haven't.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2877/grove_vale-controlled_parking_zone_study

[Jeremy]

I'd be surprised if anybody would park in Nutfield Road to use ED Station. It's not particularly close.

Am I missing something?

[Andrew1011]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'd be surprised if anybody would park in Nutfield

> Road to use ED Station. It's not particularly

> close.

>

> Am I missing something?

I suspect that joobjoob may be referring to the general displacement of non-resident parking that inevitably results from the introduction of a CPZ rather than specifically linking it to station user commuter parking.

[peckhamboy]

From the information on that link, it looks like the council is only consulting the properties within the proposed zone (which looks to be somewhat arbitrarily drawn in any case - I can't believe that there is much commuter parking for ED station at the far end of Ondine Rd, for example, whereas we live much closer and are outside the proposed zone yet likely to be much more significantly affected by it).

The consultation appears to be fundamentally flawed in not taking into account opinions of people affected by the zone but not included, and gives no information on how it is proposed to fund the CPZ. Presumably residents' permits will be available only for a fee, but there is no indication that is the case or of how that fee will be calculated, for example.

Edited to add: The consultation response can be filled out by anyone here (it's just not been publicised to anyone other then those in the proposed zone)

Additionally, the council state that their studies show that "20%" of parking during the week is attributable to "commuters or non-residents". That seems to be a very low figure to be used to justify a CPZ, not least because it does not distinguish between non-residents (presumably people visiting residents, and not necessarily taking up parking space at peak hours or for long periods) and commuters (whom it is justifiable to deter from parking in residential areas). All in all, I would prefer to see some more objective justification of the need for a CPZ before the council can seek to impose one.

[peterstorm1985]

Thanks for providing the link Peckhamboy. The survey is written as if you are in one of the streets being considered but you can still fill it in and it's well worth doing so.

[Otto]

Thanks for posting. We are JUST outside of the zone and if this happens we will never ever ever be able to park again. We cannot even park now. Bah. Thanks for the feedback link - have written in...

[Peckhampam]

I'm in Ondine Road and find it would cost ?125 a year (+ buying permits for frineds etc) to park where for the moment I am parking with no trouble for nothing. I will be making my feelings known via the consultation

[Penguin68]

With the current council's track record for listening to local opinion - vide the Northcross Road Market road closure scheme, I don't think it much matters what you say, if they've made up their minds and can charge you for what was once 'free'.

[garnwba]

Parking is a nightmare, this consultation is long overdue however thankfully it will not be a long drawn out process. If it gets the go ahead then it will be implemented by March - can't come soon enough for this Melbourne Grove resident.

I do feel for the roads near by although i have a sneaky suspicion that a number of the commuter cars are as a result of just how convenient it currently is, being forced to park further away will prob result in most of them choosing to walk/ catch a bus

[peckhamboy]

Maybe garnwba - except the proposed zone cunningly and inexplicably leaves several uncontrolled streets within very easy walking distance, whilst controlling streets much further away that almost certainly have no commuter parking. If there is a genuine need for a CPZ to deter commuter parking (and I am yet to be convinced that there is) then:

- the CPZ should be designed to actually achieve that

- an all-day exclusion is unnecessary since even a 5 minute controlled period at 10am would be sufficient

- the CPZ should be designed with residents' interests (rather than the council's revenue raising interests) in mind

- the consultation should have been aimed at a wider audience than just those whom the council hopes would be broadly in support

[garnwba]

Clearly their target audience is designed to get this through as easily as possible and generate revneue (i was however surprised at the cost of permit, i expected it to be higher) however they do have to draw the line somewhere otherwise every man and his dog will have an opinion, most of which will be personal nature rather than based on knowledge or experience.

The survey does offer 2 possible options (10-12) and (all day) so there is some room for discussion

The near by roads will unfortunately probably suffer some knock on effect at which point they will also ask for and welcome an extension to the CPZ zone (which will kinda leave you with little doubt there is a need i would have thought?), this will continue until the zone covers more than a 5 min walk to the station - at which point people will deffo not bother driving.

Parking is horrendous on Melbourne Grove during the day

[kford]

CPZs spread, like drops of oil on water, until whole areas are covered and everyone's paying ?100+ for permits, with fewer parking spaces and parking attendants scanning the area for the slightest misdemeanour.

[bonaome]

Please don't just confine your views to the forum, I urge you to make you views known at [email protected] and suggest you cc [email protected] and [email protected] with reference to "Grove Vale - proposed Controlled Parking Zone, GV"

There are a number of things about the proposals which seem to me to be ill thought through.

The consultation document reports that "The council have received feedback from residents indicating that parking demand has increased in uncontrolled streets around East Dulwich rail station." I'd say it's increased in all streets in East Dulwich over the last few years as the demographic profile of the area has changed. There's an underlying assumption that the problems reported are due to commuters parking near ED station. The consultation document says, "We have studied the pattern of parking in the area and have found that on average 20% of vehicles parked in the area during the daytime week are commuters or non-residents." The problems with this are: -

- That's 2 in 10 cars, even if the statistic is true - deterring them wouldn't free up very much space

- Of the 2 cars in 10, even if the statistic is true, we assume 1 of them is not a commuter but falls into the non-resident category - so, your friends who are visiting, the plumber who's fixing your boiler, the people who live at the other end of Lordship Lane but today have driven to park near the station to collect their elderly aunt who can't walk very far etc etc.

- The statistic appears to be plucked from the imaginations of a few freelancers working for the council who were supposed to be doing something else (see here)

Then there's some other odd bits of thinking and general irrelevance in the consultation document.

"Our surveys have identified that parking occupancy is very high in all streets ..." - welcome to London.

"... with many exceeding capacity" - does this mean that there are more cars parked on the streets than can be physically parked on the streets? Are they double parked? Are some cars parked on the pavement? Why aren't existing regulations being used to prevent this?

A CPZ will, the consultation document says, offer ...

+ "Greater ease in finding parking spaces close to home for residents and their visitors" - for residents yes, at the cost of having to buy a permit, but for their visitors, no. It means that the visitors can only come and stay outside the CPZ hours or they have to fiddle about with scratch card permits or similar (at cost to the resident). I know it might only be a few quid for pay and display or a scratch card, but my personal experience as well as common sense tells me that that is making it a hassle to have people coming to visit you/workmen etc. It makes it harder, not easier.

+ "Easier parking near shops, schools and other amenities within the area with nearby pay and display bays ..." - ahhh, pay and display, yes, now I get how that makes it easier for me.

+ "Reduced traffic congestion with less obstructive parking as bays will show where it is safe to park and yellow lines where it is not ..." - Shouldn't yellow/red single/double lines already do this? This shouldn't be wrapped up together as a proposition with a CPZ.

+ "A safer road environment for all motorists, cyclists and pedestrians due to less dangerous parking." - As above, if it's safety that's an issue this should be addressed with double yellow lines, not a CPZ and I think it's misleading to position safety improvements as a benefit of the proposed CPZ.

+ "By reducing parking pressure, CPZs make other street improvements such as trees and on-street cycle parking more acceptable" - You couldn't make it up. If anyone can explain to me how having a CPZ makes having trees on the street more acceptable I would be eternally grateful. Is it because the extra trees can have all the parking notices and pay and display machines nailed to them?

+"Yellow lines at junctions will ensure better visibility for all road users, including pedestrians, by keeping them clear of parked cars." - Again, yellow lines wrapped up with a residents' parking scheme. If visibility is an issue, then the yellow lines should go down independent of a residents' parking scheme.

+"A safer road environment for all motorists, cyclists and pedestrians due to less dangerous parking." - As above, residents' parking scheme not the way to control dangerous parking.

+ "Greater access for emergency vehicles, as we will be able to maintain a safe width on narrow or busy roads." - So the bays will only be for narrower vehicles than those parking there now??

+ "Improved public realm due to the reduction of parked cars." - Is the scheme about ensuring residents can park, or about reducing the overall number of vehicles? What's the reduction proposed to be? Is it more than 10%? In which case there's less parking for residents assuming the statistic about parking use above is true.

In addition to the above, there's all the issues mentioned by other posters on this thread, including that the consultation appears to be very narrow, and if you were a cynic you might even think the documents and selection of those included seem designed to gain quick approval from those to whom the scheme will perhaps have braoad appeal without any real consideration of the wider impact on the East Dulwich community.

In short, it's a shocker!

[peckhamboy]

garnwba Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> The near by roads will unfortunately probably

> suffer some knock on effect at which point they

> will also ask for and welcome an extension to the

> CPZ zone (which will kinda leave you with little

> doubt there is a need i would have thought?), this

> will continue until the zone covers more than a 5

> min walk to the station - at which point people

> will deffo not bother driving.

That's my problem with it - the introduction of the CPZ itself creates the need for an extension due to the displacement of the parking. Looking at the 'initial plan', I cannot understand why Oglander Road is left completely uncontrolled despite being within a 3-4 min walk, whilst the far ends of Ondine Rd and ED Road are in the proposed zone but must be around a 10 min walk to the station. As far as I can see, the current plan would simply concentrate all of the commuter parking from quite a wide area into the very convenient triangle of Oglander Rd, Oxenford St and Everthorpe Road.

That seems incomprehensible to me.

[prickle]

There is already another thread discussing CPZ. Might be worth a read too if interested.

The council has an incentive to implement a CPZ as it will be a revenue earner in these hard times. Particularly galled by the cost of the visitor permits ? ?16 for first book of 10 permits then ?32 for books of 10 thereafter. Apparently its to deter resale on the black market. Seems to me its a nice source of revenue, how much does it cost to print a book of permits?

There is also talk of allowing payment by mobile phone which means that if the controlled time is say 12 to 2pm, the commuter can just pay for this by mobile from work?! I think James B is looking into this.

[Andrew1011]

prickle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There is also talk of allowing payment by mobile

> phone which means that if the controlled time is

> say 12 to 2pm, the commuter can just pay for this

> by mobile from work?!

This is a very good point.

[peckhamboy]

I assume that the controlled time would be 12-2 but that (without a permit) parking is limited to 1 hour, and no return within 1 hr or similar. That would seem like the logical solution but then I doubt whether a huge amount of logic has been applied to this idea. The consultation document certainly seems to suggest otherwise.

[Ris2011]

I agree with many of the posts above, i also live on Nutfield Road and find it impossible to park at present. I have spoken to the council employee who is drafting the final report and explained a few of my concerns

-no one has consulted the roads around the controlled parking zone

-they will only be moving the problem from controlled parking zone to the surrounding roads therefore not solving the problem

-some roads around the controlled parking zone are closer to the station than within e.g Spurling Road 0.3miles, Ondine Road 0.4miles).

He explained that due to budget cuts they could not consult everyone in the area.

Therefore i will be going around Nutfield, Archdale, Northcross and Frogley Roads to get signatures against this proposal - if you live in another road surrounding the proposed controlled parking zone and are unhappy with the proposal then please PM for a template to get your neighbours to sign.

I can totally understand the residents within the proposal who want to introduce permits but this is just moving the problem from one congested street to another.

[jimmyraj]

I don't understand why the CPZ consultation doesn't cover Quorn Road, opposite the station. As far as I'm aware that has no parking restrictions yet isn't part of this and is probably the nearest road after Melbourne Grove.

[Saila]

"As far as I can see, the current plan would simply concentrate all of the commuter parking from quite a wide area into the very convenient triangle of Oglander Rd, Oxenford St and Everthorpe Road".

EXACTLY

Makes no sense to have this weird v-shaped exclusion which is under 5 min walk from the station and therefore will turn into a car park!

either make the boundary consistent or dont do it at all!

[ali2007]

One of the reasons I love East Dulwich is because we can park here! As a former Brixton / Herne Hill resident it's an absolute nightmare as soon as CPZs are introduced - you cannot park anywhere there now without paying ?6 an hour. It started with the roads by the tube then progressively spread and got more expensive. My husbands mum (granny) lives there and we can't visit her unless we want to pay ?12 to have a cup of tea. Even WITH one of the authorised visitor permits, if you don't tick all the right boxes and scratch the right dates off, you get fined. We were fined ?80 - because we'd written our reg in in pencil instead of pen. An honest mistake but the council didn't care. In addition, local business are now suffering there because no-one can park. I realise the proposal is currently for a few streets in ED but these things have a way of ballooning. This is just a hostile way of making cash out of ED resdients - I would oppose this all the way.

[flocker spotter]

As an Oglander resident, I am appalled at this.

Parking in our road is bad enough.

If we get all the cars that can't park in neighbouring streets, where are the residents to park?

We won't even be able to park in the streets nearby as they will be part of the CPZ, which we won't be in.

What an appallingly ill-thought-out proposal!

[bonaome]

With ali2007. I've been through this three times now. Pimlico, Battersea, Brixton. Same thing each time. Starts off near the station, spreads and spreads. It costs residents money for a permit, it costs businesses heavilly as the permits are very expensive and it deters local shoppers and makes it a pain and an expense to have visitors.

Moreover the proposals seem to be based on an assumption that a significant proportion of the parked traffic is commuter traffic, yet this is not well founded.

Add to that the fact that the consultation document is in large part nonsense and irrelevance and you have all the ingredients of a really crap idea.

[Penguin68]

This is nothing to do with what residents want and everything to do with revenue generation - the area is precisely chosen to ensure that there will be intended consequences - leading to more calls for control by a few in the newly effected roads, and extension of the CPZ and later on ramped-up prices. All of you close to ED station - and soon to be not so close at all to ED station are a little pot of gold waiting to be dug up by the council - you vote lib dem or Tory, so they aren't going to lose any votes over it. It really doesn't matter what you say in your feedback, you are going to get a CPZ, it's going to be extended and extended and you will end up paying through the nose for what once was free. Does it matter if the nature and environment of free to park ED is changed irrevocably - not at all to the ones in power who don't visit and don't care about the leafy anomaly in their borough, particularly if that leafy anomaly can be made to fund their ambitions.

I have off street parking for 3 cars and all this will do is ramp up the price of my house. But I still don't want the CPZ to happen, because it will change the nature of the area and reduce its utility and attraction.

[trizza]

The consultation is badly thought out (although i'm not at all suprised - it's by southwark council).

Streets near to the CPZ will clearly be impacted. Quite how Oglander isn't part of the proposed CPZ escapes me.

Many in the proposed zone will doubtless support the imposition of parking restrictions in the belief they will allow them to be able to park outside their houses. I suspect the reality is that there will still be problems with parking given the location of the zone to local amenities.

The cost of parking will rise - motorists are seen as cash cows. Prepare yourself for "green taxes" on CPZs - in Islington it costs almost ?400 pa for the "most polluting" cars (although this obviously takes no account of how they are used).