E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[Andrew1011]

sophiesofa Wrote:

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

> For reference (and mini moan):

>

> 1 year permit ?125.00 - not cheap

> 1 year business permit ?525.00 - I'm npt a local

> business but why would theirs be over 4x more than

> a residents? Presumably businesses will suffer as

> it is as people may not be able to pop in

> (depending on the cpz hours) as conveniently?

> Visitor book ?16 for ten, one-day permits.(1st

> book)

> ?36 for ten, one-day permits (2nd + book per

> year)

> Average pay and display charge ?2.70 per hour

I'm not justifying or condoning the cost of a business parking permit but I suggest companies like Foxtons (I know it's not in the zone), with its multiple cars, might be one reason.

[Andrew1011]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> If a Labour

> controlled council can raise revenues from wards

> which are not wholeheartedly labour, why wouldn't

> they? And why would they care if in doing so they

> reduce the value and joy of living somewhere most

> of their supporters don't.

There's little point throwing around an almost certainly erroneous hypothesis about political motivations for imposing a CPZ in roads near ED station, especially as you may well find that the proposal for this CPZ has the support of at least one of the local ED (non-Labour) councillors.

Have you seen any of the local Lib Dem councillors arguing against it?

[Loz]

Whatever you do, DON'T ANSWER THE TRICK QUESTION asking which option of CPZ you would prefer. Leave it blank.

[Penguin68]

an almost certainly erroneous hypothesis about political motivations

I am sorry - if local politicians belonging to political parties are not politically motivated, why are they not all independents? I would be quite unhappy if I voted for a local politician (as I do) to find him or her not politicaly motivated. That's the point of politics and elections. Politicians want to be re-elected, which means pleasing their supporters and not worrying too much about those who don't support them. If they can achieve ends they think are good (spending money on things they think are important) by redistributing that money from those who don't support them to those that do - do you really think they would hold back from doing that - when that's probably what they stood for election to achieve (the spending, not the taxing).

What I am trying to say is that ED is not a 'constituency' whose howls of pain at a council proposal are going to worry labour local politicians too much. Not if their proposals form a necessary part of their revenue ambitions.

What I object to I suppose is the charade of consultation (and its costs) when I can be pretty certain that the result is already decided upon. The weasel worded 'poll' and the careful drawing of consultation boundaries is enough to make that clear, as are the unfounded claims (raised by James) of the 'benefits' of the proposal. Oh, and the trigger, an unvouched for '20% are foreigners (i.e. non residents)' claim. Just a touch of local zenophobia to keep things rolling on.

[karter]

The councilors are looking to have another achievement under their belt, that's what this is. "We did this, we did that, blah blah blah blah". But in this case it will be to bring down house prices a little further and finally close down the little independent shops in that stretch. Last time the consultation was flawed and did not go anywhere. This time round they have created a solution to a problem that does not exist. Majority of people on here are against it. Leave our lovely little East Dulwich alone and let our friends and family come visit the area. What say you James Barber?

[bugsbgone]

Ohhhhhhh James?

[trizza]

IMO barber would be happy banning cars from Ed entirely. The absence of any comment from him on this is telling. It's a complete stitch up by southwark council. The "consultation" is utterly impartial and quite misleading.I suspect it will go through though - one more step towards making Ed like clapham.

[James Barber]

Hi Calculus,

But one of the options is for the controlled parking to only operate 10-12, which is the minimum period thought enforceable and can be enforced using the same people who enforce the Herne Hill CPZ which operates 12-2.

Hi Trizza,

I'm just back from a 3 day holiday with the family. I didn't get one with them this summer due to mothers illness.

Hi Karter,

I was under the impression such zones boost house prices but that wouldn't influence my reaction when the consultation feedback is in. And no I haven't a clue how people will react on the streets the CPZ is proposed.

And yes I do support this consultation and residents being asked whether they agree with the 40+ who have complained and asked for this. I am proud to have ensured one of the options is that residents are being asked about any controlled zone operating 10-12. And no I haven't prejudged what my reaction to residents responses. If it's clear they are for or against that will be what I try to ensure happens. My only caveat is that the views of those on the actual streets will carry more weight for me as they have to live with the parking stress. Clearly those neighbouring should be taken into account but the idea residents in Nunhead or Forest Hill have an equal weighting is bizarre.

[Gimme]

At least there is some consultation on this scheme, as opposed to the ridiculous changes to the bins that have seen us struggling to get out of our door due to bin congestion...

[prickle]

Hi James,

I wonder if you had any joy finding out how the option of paying remotely by mobile will work with the 10-12 CPZ? If you remember, this was discussed in a previous thread and you were going to find out. I note that payment methods including by mobile is not mentioned in the consultation document.

Thanks

[Bobby P]

I can't believe there are 40+ people who have seriously asked for this self-destructive measure to be brought in. They much have lots of money, and plenty of free time for checking each day that bays haven't been suspended and their cars erroneously ticketed.

They must also not ever have lived under a CPZ regime before, or they would certainly not be asking for one here.

[James Barber]

Hi prickle,

No I've not had a response yet.

On reflection without a parking permit they'd get a ticket in majority of spaces which would not be pay and display. For the pay and display it would cost from what I recall ?2.60/hour so for one offs that might be attractive but for most non residents commuting people adding an extra ?104pcm is probably too much.

[peterstorm1985]

James Barber Wrote:

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

>

> residents being asked whether they agree with the

> 40+ who have complained and asked for this.

Just out of interest James, are you able to elaborate on exactly what the 40 people said, ie was it 'please, please can you do something about the parking problem' or was it, 'Dear Southwark, I would love to hand over a huge chunk of cash in the vague hope that my chances of parking outside my house might improve by a minimum percentage'?

Thanks

[Mscrawthew]

Having lived in a CPZ for 5 years, I am totally against possibly having to live in another! James, Could you tell me if this were to go ahead, why residents and their visitors cannot be issued with free permits? I don`t know why anyone who is a resident should pay? Do you live in a CPZ James and know the effects as such?

[Otto]

Related but somewhat off topic - but - James Barber -- How about Ed Bikes? Get a few racks...pop one or two in the area of ed that people commute to the station via car and throw a rack or two down by the station...and do a pr campaign to get the drivers out of the cars and onto the bikes? Have a few Nihola's for people to throw their kids in if they are dropping them somewhere on the way to work??? Make them almost free and get local businesses like ummm...foxtons to sponsor the upkeep and costs...;) Or, baring that, get a grant for it...

Why not try something new and greener here in Ed besides the controlled parking solution?

[Penguin68]

Could you tell me if this were to go ahead, why residents and their visitors cannot be issued with free permits? I don`t know why anyone who is a resident should pay?

This is about revenue generation - the council saw an opportunity (no doubt encouraged by James' reporting of a groundswell of opinion in favour) and are taking it. This is NOT, repeat NOT about helping out local residents (although James may have been motivated by that). It is about generating a continued and unregulated revenue stream which sits outside any government interference in council tax increases. Once a tax is in place, no subsequent regime will remove it (Boris removing the Western congestion zone is the exception which acts as proof of this rule).

[Andrew1011]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> This is about revenue generation - the council saw

> an opportunity (no doubt encouraged by James'

> reporting of a groundswell of opinion in favour)

> and are taking it. This is NOT, repeat NOT about

> helping out local residents (although James may

> have been motivated by that).

I can confirm that there has been a genuine "groundswell of opinion" in most of the proposed CPZ area (certainly amongst the people I know here) about problem parking, including by commuters, from residents not being able to park their cars in their own streets. To be honest I'm surprised that the free parking around East Dulwich station has survived for as long as it has. I have my own views about how that problem could and should be solved but I simply can't agree that the council's only motivation is to raise revenue and not to assist local residents.

Also, on the issue of Boris Johnson removing the Western congestion, now there's an example of a party politician playing to his constituency if ever there was one.

[gmackenney]

James

Nobody was suggesting that residents in Nunhead would need to be consulted for this CPZ in its present form - what was suggested however in the prior message on this thread, is that this wouldn't be far from the truth given the propensity for CPZs to grow. The prior post was tongue in cheek and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

What I'm struggling with is why the residents of streets clearly in favour will carry so much more weight that those who live on the periphery (who will clearly be in the worse situation following implementation). All CPZs appear to do is move a parking problem from one area to another, whilst the council derives revenue.

I think there would definitely be less hostility to a CPZ if the council were being less cynical in its approach:

1. Wider consultation of affected streets

2. More emphasis on parking survey results than highly subjective advantages of a CPZ within the consultation document

3. Some more objective coverage of the downsides

The current consultation appears geared towards pushing this CPZ through to the advantage of the council and residents on the included streets rather than the community at large.

[gmackenney]

If anyone's interested, I received a response to my email to the council on this matter which I'm happy to forward via PM (it's a bit long to include in the body of this thread!)

[Widdy]

At the moment you can park wherever, but a cpz will mean designated parking areas, which will inevitably reduce the available parking areas on streets around the station compared to existing situation. Probably equal to the amount of commuter parking. So likely to have very little benefit for anyone but massive expense and inconvenience for lots of people.

Having lived in Lambeth before it's a nightmare living in a cpz area. Nearly everyone i know who lives in a cpz has been ticketed and / or towed at least once (?300 a time) for minor parking infringements. Not nice worrying everytime you've been on holiday whether your car is still there or has been towed away. Even if you don't get caught, friends or family visiting may do...which is embarrassing! In my experience even with a cpz you still can't park near your house anyway.

[peckhamboy]

Exactly! There is no real evidence that the problems residents have with parking in the very small number of streets affected is caused by commuter parking and not caused simply because there are more cars belonging to residents than there are spaces to park them. Essentially, disregarding double yellow lines and dropped kerbs for off-street parking, there is space on most streets for one car per house frontage. On streets where a number of properties are converted into flats, it follows that there will be pressure on spaces. And if the cars belong to residents, no CPZ will change that.

The justification (or pretext) for a 'consultation' is flimsy at best, the consultation itself is stunningly biased and wholly inadequate (for example, there is no mention of the cost to residents and no discussion of the point that a number of spaces on each street are likely to be pay and display (ie not available to residents unless you pay extra on top of your permit) and the proposed zone is so illogical as to defy belief.

[Moos]

James Barber Wrote:

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

My only caveat is that the

> views of those on the actual streets will carry

> more weight for me as they have to live with the

> parking stress. Clearly those neighbouring should

> be taken into account but the idea residents in

> Nunhead or Forest Hill have an equal weighting is

> bizarre.

Residents of the streets within walking distance of the proposed cpz will be profoundly affected, and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

[gmackenney]

On this subject (bias in the consultation), I'll share with you some of the response from the councillors on the matter raised by peckhamboy:

When surveyed, Ondine Road had a high weekday average occupancy (85%), with a maximum peak of 96% at 19:30, the lowest occupancy was 78% and occurred at 09:00. The proportion of daytime commuter/non-res parking was 10%. The values for East Dulwich Road were more polarised with a higher average occupancy (87%), max occupancy (107% at 10:30), lower minimum occupancy (62% at 18:00) and higher commuter/non-res proportion (14%),

When recommending the consultation area we also took into account the requests for a CPZ that had been received from the area. The council received quite a lot of correspondence from residents in East Dulwich Road for a CPZ but very little in Oglander and few in Ondine..

This was in response to a question relating to Ondine and East Dulwich Roads. Note that for Ondine, 10% of parking can be attributed to commuters, and at no point was the road 100% occupied (i.e. there are spaces available). In addition, the lowest occupancy was at 9:00 am (when surely most commuters would have parked) and the highest at 19:30 (when most would have left). Moreover, few residents in Ondine want this CPZ according to Paul Gellard himself. So this begs the question - why does it extend to this road at all?

To peckhamboy's point regarding the number of residents and the available space to park, East Dulwich Road is a case in point. It consists of very large Victorian properties divided into flats. Of course the number of parking spaces in this road is going to be constrained. No CPZ will alleviate this issue - as a resident you'll still have to play 'hunt the space' but now you'll be paying for the privilege.

What makes me mad is that this detail isn't in the consultation document precisely because it doesn't support the case for a CPZ. These guys need to be held to account for putting forward a very weak case for a CPZ, surrounded with loads of waffle about yellow lines and trees as opposed to hard facts.

[peckhamboy]

And of course, looking at the Ondine Rd statistics, it is perfectly feasible (indeed likely) that the 10% attributable to commuters - given that the 96% occupancy figure features at 7.30pm - is down to people who live on Ondine Rd and commute away from the area by car, so actually triggering a reduction in average daytime parking. But of course that's not a story that sells a money-making CPZ. Is the consultation disingenuous? Yes. Is it downright dishonest? That's a question to ask our local councillors.

[gmackenney]

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"

I echo this - currently the council appear to only be listening to those in favour of the CPZ. If you oppose it please make yourself heard by contacting them directly. Some more thoughts from our councillors, just in case you're in any doubt as to the bias involved:

Consulting too large an area (ie asking people we know don?t have a parking problem) is a waste of the available budget. Consulting too small an area runs the risk that people around the edge feel they are excluded. Finding an edge isn?t straightforward and it?s important to consider that this is only a consultation. No decision has been taken to implement a CPZ.

Unlike the area to the south-west of Grove Vale, the area to the north-east has a more complicated network of interconnecting streets and that determining a logical boundary is difficult (without consulting a much larger area that funding does not allow for).

Consulting people who don't currently have a parking problem (but will have following the implementation of a CPZ) is a waste of money! Moreover, not enough funding is being given to the project to 'deterimine a logical boundary'.

It?s important to note that this is just a consultation. There is no certainty that any streets will be approved for a CPZ, so its not possible to predict whether there will be a knock-on. Should a CPZ be approved in the consultation area, we will monitor it?s effects in surrounding roads.

In other words, once a CPZ is established, the council will start extending it with impunity! The effect on surrounding streets will not be accounted for until after the CPZ is in place, by which time it will be too late.

Right - going to stop hogging the thread now!