E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[SplendidLikePeckham]

"Could a larger area been consulted - yes but minimising communications spend was one of the administrations pledges when they were elected with a majority - people voted for less money on comms which means less money for consultations."

Oh please. A piece of paper saying something along the lines of "A controlled parking zone is being proposed on surrounding roads which could have an impact on parking on your street. Please log on to the Southwark website for more info and let us know your views" could easily have been put through letterboxes at negligible cost. Mr Barber are you really suggesting that a need for "minimising communications spend" stopped that from happening?

What has infuriated many is that they have only found out about this via this forum.

You keep directing people to the official response document, and yet this makes clear it is only seeking the views of those who live in the proposed CPZ

So for clarity...

- If those living on surrounding streets outside the CPZ want to make their views known, in a way that means they will be officially "registered" and noted in any statistics subsequently used to justify the decision - who should they contact?

- Can you confirm that those views will also be taken on board by the Council when making their decision?

Thank you

[James Barber]

Hi tomsav,

I've not been on the forum as I have a normal regular day job, family and various councillor commitments.

So please occassionally give me a break!

56% car ownership. Is the average for Southwark. But much of Southwark isn't very close to a station or lots of bus routes as this part of ED is. Equally its at the bottom of a hill discouraging some people cycling. All these factors mean I don't know. But I will ask what car ownership levels are and assuming this data is available would of course share it.

The CPZ fees are set by the council cabinet member Barrie Hargrove. They recently increased from ?99.30 to ?125 but politically I think they'll stay at this new level until after 2014 the next election - massive rise for people to forget about by the time elections come up.

Council estate parking permits are free for the 1st one. I only discovered this recently and the difference does seem od. It is a tough balancing act. Surplus from parking enforcenet, parking, CPZ fees is used to fund things like lollipops patrols, and other rosd safety measures. Personally I'd do more targetting with that surplus and expect less and keep CPZ fees down in this economic climate.

Oct21 - I recalled seeing a couple of instances about Nunhead and Forest Hill. Perhaps they've since been edited. It also related to private emails and as you can imagine I've received a few on this subject.

Residents selling their cars? I can't possibly know the personal circumstances of residents selling their cars. Having a relatively thick distribution of car club cars we can expect over time some residents to not replace cars when their current one is uneconomic for them and rely on the few times they kept a car going to instead use a car club car. If it works for them great. But for others cars are an essential part of their lives.

Commuters 27%/33%. The forecast for London bridge is moveing from current 48M passengers pa to +35% by 2016 and ultimately +67%. What I hadn't appreciated was ED station has over 1.56M passengers in or out pa already. Data comes from the Office of Rail Regulation, Southwark planning website, South Eastern train website for a simple summary.

Hi Spendlidlikepeckham,

If you have views about the limited consultation area - the cabinet member taking the decision about that was Cllr Barrie Hargrove - tell him. Not sure it would ever have gone as far as Peckham as your pseudoynm would suggest you live.

I can confirm that all responses will be read, collated and presented in the final officer report. I've already asked the council official to ensure that streets in the area are listed seperately and neighbouring streets with sufficient responses so unless the cabinet councillor over rules this that is what I'm expecting to see. Clearly if someone responds from well outside the area they're response will carry less weight in the report and decision making process.

The officer report will be presented at the Dulwich Community Council and Camberwell Community Council for local councillors to comment and make their recommendations. The report and these recommendations will then be reviewed for the cabinet councill Barrie Hargrove to make the final decision/s.

Anyone can present a petition at either or both community councils - the threshold is 500 signatures and a few weeks notice and they'll be meeting to discuss this proposed CPZ in mid January.

[first mate]

The online petition is not easy to find on Southwark website, it is rather well buried. I would not have known about it had it not been for this forum, or about the CPZ consultation. The whole process, as well as the petition, seems to be biased. Again, I have yet to meet a single person in the area that supports CPZ. The consultation process needs to be a lot more transparent and needs to include most of ED, not just the few streets involved. Letters to ED residents please. Otherwise there is no way the 'consultation' can be viewed as democratic.

[Chener Books]

... and the proposed number of Residents' Parking Spaces is?

John K

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

What do you mean by East Dulwich - some view all of SE22 as East Dulwich, others a mile around East Dulwich station?

Nothing stops you printing forms for your street and calling on your neighbours - especially as you clearly have strong views on this.

What do you mean by democratic. Usually that means people voting in a constituency. So what constituency do you think relevant for this consultation and does that mean you'd be happy for decisions about your street be taken sometimes by a majority of people not living on your street?

My answer would be streets views are really important but neighbouring streets vies should be taken into account but not final. The final decision maker will be Cllr Barrie Hargrove.

[SplendidLikePeckham]

Mr Barber, thank you for your response.

I have an SE15 postcode, so technically I live in Peckham, as do many others who will be affected by this. My residence is not "far" from the proposed CPZ as you suggest but right next to it. In fact Ondine Road has an SE15 postcode and it is within the zone.

I will contact Barrie Hargrove as per your suggestion, and urge others to do the same.

[gsirett]

All

There is a meeting of the Dulwich Community Council next Monday 7th November, 7pm, St Barnabas Church community centre, Calton Ave.

This CPZ is on the agenda.

I have been asked by my councillor, Toby Eckersley, to get people along to this meeting "with a soapbox". Toby shares the same concerns with the people on this forum, but does need his constitutants to play their part and support the case not to have this CPZ by attedning the meeting.

Toby is a councillor for Vilage Ward, so ED station is not technically within his patch, but many roads neighbouring the scheme are.

[paulc]

The CPZ study says that ?... on average 20% of vehicles parked in the area during the daytime week are commuters or non-residents.? As a resident next to the station (and user of it) for about 20 years, I?d reckon this was about right. I could witness spaces filling up in the road (now inside the proposed CPZ) just before the rush hour. I knew of commuters attracted by the reduced Zone 2 fares who were local, after all a car journey from south ED or Forest Hill to the station was/is comparable to the 15-minute journey to London Bridge, and considerably more by bus or walking.

The scenario that Penguin68 outlines (20 October 10:14AM) did actually happen from about 1992. Shops did shut down (due to the doldrums effect of the Sainsburys development), congestion did ease (due to the recession), and parking became a fraction easier in the road, more so when it became a true cul-de-sac following the closure of the hospital. Recession may do it again.

But at the end of the 90s, we experienced parking spaces reducing dramatically as ED flourished and what were once zero-car households acquired one or more vehicles.

The amount of public parking space in ED is broadly the same as it always was and it seems to me that today?s ED lives aren?t that different to those of our relatively car-deprived parents (schools, shops, commuting, days out), it?s just that we?ve each claimed a bit of the street for one our bulkiest possessions. So for the equivalent of an extra mobile phone tariff (?15.74 per month per resident, 75% discount for alternative fuel vehicles or motorcycles, says the FAQ), it feels like a CPZ would just temporarily shift the problem around a little.

As a car-free household, I?ve accepted the impact that others? car use has on accessibility to my visitors or trade vehicles, but as both the local population and buildings age, more people will need home deliveries and more buildings will need builder access. Even if we could create more parking space, like the M25, cars (or rather people?s decision to buy) would expand to fill it.

I?d like to think the council don?t see parking zones as a Machiavellian plan to raise revenue (after all the FAQ says that isn?t legal), but I can?t help feeling a tad suspicious: in 2011, parking tickets were twice issued on the street with fairly dubious means (some of which to my cost) - one to a builder, one to charity collection van - on the grounds that it was a CPZ. Now I find out that it?s only just being proposed!

Another factor I find odd is the appearance of build-outs in Grove Vale (see "Grove Vale made smaller") that conveniently create parking bays just as the CPZ proposal comes up for consultation. It all contributes to feeling of wariness.

[James Barber]

Hi gsirey,

Cllr Toby Eckersley is one of the councillors for Village ward and clearly trying to stir things. No part of the proposed CPZ is in Village ward. The western part of Melbourne Grove from East Dulwich Grove to Lordship Lane is in his ward. He was very much in favour of extending the Herne Hill CPZ. The meeting is not planned to talk about this CPZ, it is not on the agenda, as the consultation doesn't end until the 11 November. The soapbox 5 min section could be used but you have a consultation which will have more import.

[bonaome]

Please Contact your councillor and let them know your thoughts about the proposed scheme and the consultation process:

As well as James Barber for ED there is

Jonathan Mitchell, 020 7525 2839 / 07903 967911 [email protected]

and

Councillor Rosie Shimell, 020 7525 3488, [email protected]

For the South Camberwell side James Barber tells me the people to contact would be ...

[email protected] and [email protected] and [email protected]

In all cases cc: [email protected]

He is the Cabinet Member for Transport, Environment and Recycling. His phone number is: 020 7525 7311 He has confirmed that he'll be at the surgery at Peckham Library this Friday 6-7pm - you don't need an appointment.

[James Barber]

Some days ago four questions were asked of me and I've just received the answers from council officers. Please see attached.

I'll try and summarise here as well:

Q1.how many resident only parking spaces will be available in the zone after implementation?

A1. approx 558 assuming 5m average length per vehicles - 530 for permit holders and 28 shared use bays (pay and display and permit holders).

Q2. how many cars belong to households within the zone?

A2. survey showed average of 475 parked vehicles at 6am over a non school holiday Thurs, Sat and Sun. DVLA figures suggest 450 vehicles owned by people in the proposed streets.

Q3. what is the cost to the council (I seem to recall an earlier comment that TfL were funding this?

A3. Funded by TfL, parking enforcement costs would be within the existing contract.

Q4. what is the forecast annual income from the zone?

A4. Permit take up across Southwark CPZ's is 11% which would suggest ?16,000pa from resident permits. If 100% of car owners bought a permit then ?56,250.

[bonaome]

The parking team have the proposals on display on: -

- Saturday 5 November 2011, 10am-2pm

- Wednesday 9 November 2011, 4pm-8pm

At Grove Vale Library in both cases.

I'm hoping to go to the Wednesday session.

@james barber: keeping the costs down and all that, how would one go about organising a notice in the community notice boards - the one on NXR and the one on Grove Vale?

[pre]

[/pre]

[garnwba]

Cheers Bonaome

just emailed all below to tell them what a long overdue and brilliant idea the CPZ is.

James Barber Jonathan Mitchell, 020 7525 2839 / 07903 967911 [email protected]

Councillor Rosie Shimell, 020 7525 3488, [email protected]

[email protected] and [email protected] and [email protected]

In all cases cc: [email protected]

[gsirett]

James

You are correct, Cllr Toby Eckersley is a councillor for Village Ward. He is also MY councillor.I live in Village Ward. That is why I have asked him to put forward MY frustrations. I live on a Road that is 200m from the proposed CPZ. People on MY Road will be greatly impacted by this CPZ. People in MY Road will not be able to park. People in MY Road will, no doubt, be part of the furture expansion of this scheme.

People on MY Road have had no communication about the consultation. People on MY Road overwhelmingly do not want this scheme to go ahead

But, it's not all about ME is it? I'm only one of 1000's of people who live around the edges of this scheme. Only 1 of 100's of people who are venting their frustration over this

Cllr Eckersley is not trying to stir. He asked me to attend the meeting as I contacted him with my frustrations, one of which is that the consultation is flimsy at best ("sorry,we haven't got enough money to tell anybody who may be negativly affected" ) I am unable to attend, so he asked me if anybody else could attend

Your attitude to this subject seems to reflect the attitude of Southwark so far "lets only worry about the people inside the CPZ, don't bother about everybody else"

My guess, and it is only a guess, is that you've had stacks of correspendance about this and that it is overwhelmingly against this scheme (just a guess) .

I completly respect the hard work you do as a coucillor (and your embracing of this forum) but this scheme is badly thought out, I believe it will not achieve it's objectves, it's proposed based on poorly conducted research, it will change our area, it will lead to extensions. Most importantly I think, put to a vote, the people of the area are overwhelmingly are against it

So, maybe Cllr Eckersley is stirring, but at least he's LISTENING. I'd take his stiring any day of the week if it gets this scheme stopped

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi gsirey,

> Cllr Toby Eckersley is one of the councillors for

> Village ward and clearly trying to stir things. No

> part of the proposed CPZ is in Village ward. The

> western part of Melbourne Grove from East Dulwich

> Grove to Lordship Lane is in his ward. He was very

> much in favour of extending the Herne Hill CPZ.

> The meeting is not planned to talk about this CPZ,

> it is not on the agenda, as the consultation

> doesn't end until the 11 November. The soapbox 5

> min section could be used but you have a

> consultation which will have more import.

[garnwba]

gsirey - your concern for those of us who are currently affected by the parking problem is truly touching......

[Loz]

Q1.how many resident only parking spaces will be available in the zone after implementation?

A1. approx 558 assuming 5m average length per vehicles - 530 for permit holders and 28 shared use bays (pay and display and permit holders).

Q2. how many cars belong to households within the zone?

A2. survey showed average of 475 parked vehicles at 6am over a non school holiday Thurs, Sat and Sun. DVLA figures suggest 450 vehicles owned by people in the proposed streets.

So if 20% of parking is the 'fault' of commuters, therefore 450 cars owned by residents = 80%, so therefore all cars - 562. Since there is 558 bays then there is no problem.

Or all your figures are wrong.

Q3. what is the cost to the council (I seem to recall an earlier comment that TfL were funding this?

A3. Funded by TfL, parking enforcement costs would be within the existing contract.

Q4. what is the forecast annual income from the zone?

A4. Permit take up across Southwark CPZ's is 11% which would suggest ?16,000pa from resident permits. If 100% of car owners bought a permit then ?56,250.

If TFL are paying for it, why are you charging for permits? Sounds like a rip off to me.

[Loz]

garnwba Wrote:

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

> gsirey - your concern for those of us who are currently affected by the parking problem is truly

> touching......

... and your concern for your neighbours who you are casually shoving your problems onto is equally touching.

[garnwba]

Ahh - so one of you against the CPZ finally admits there is a problem....!

[gsirett]

garnwba Wrote:

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

> gsirey - your concern for those of us who are

> currently affected by the parking problem is truly

> touching......

Touche !!

Of course I'm concerned. I live in the area, cycle down your road (I guess) every day, have to cross Melbourne Grove with my kids and use the station regualry, but...................

I live on Trossachs Road, a Road already at parking capacity, a Road (along with many others) that are suddenly going to have the same problems as you. I already (like you) often have to park on the next steet. Doesn't that come with living in London?

There, I've got that out of the way, there is a definate hint of a NIMBY about me. But that is not what this is just about. If I thought this scheme would deliver an overall benefit to the ED community, then I'd be for it, but it won't

@garnwba : do you really think that you're suddenly going to be able to park outside your house every day? Speak to people who live in CPZ's and see what they say.

[peterstorm1985]

There doesn't seem to be enough of a gap between the number of spaces and number of resident permits (with the addition of business permits) to give any increased likelihood of a space in the street of choice.

It would be interesting to have the DVLA* figures of resident vehicles compared to available spaces on a street by street basis.

*I'm assuming that the DVLA figures are lower than recorded vehicles at 6am as they won't include any company owned fleet cars not registered to private addresses (typically vehicles with company logos).

[first mate]

James,

There is good evidence out there to show the snowballing, spreading nature of CPZ' over time. It is disingenuous of you to suggest that only consulting with the handful of streets directly affected at first is fair. You know darn well that you and the pro CPZers just need to get a few streets up and running and the rest will follow suit and there will be little any of us can do to stop it. Because by introducing the CPZ on some streets you will place greater pressure on the surrounding streets.

[avj]

As i write this (9pm)- no parking spaces on derwent grove, elsie or melbourne grove- so the commuter parking argument is flawed, there are just more cars around now with so many people moving to the area.

[gmackenney]

Quite a few of us against acknowledge there is a problem is some streets. What's disputed is how acute that problem is; what the cause is (commuters vs visitors etc); and whether a CPZ addresses that problem. I'm unsure how one can come to the conclusion that a CPZ is automatically the answer on the basis of the flimsy consultation which is absent of supporting data (e.g. number of parking spaces lost, street by street parking analysis etc.) but full of wooly stuff about trees and cycle parking.

People for the CPZ seem to want to sweep these issues under the carpet. They don't want you to know that there are doubts about whether the CPZ will work or not and happily gloss over or ignore well reasoned arguments against. They certainly won't want to quantify the negative effect on the surrounding streets. They disregard the views of people who've previously lived in CPZs. They show no interest in the statistics and the conclusions drawn from them. And if you're in doubt as to whether CPZs grow or not - Google 'Herne Hill CPZ consultation'. Naturally those in the surrounding streets are worried and with good reason.

I don't doubt that parking in some streets is harder than others. That forms part of the pros and cons that should be evaluated when living in a property. For example, my street is close to Goose Green playground. In the summer, parking becomes an issue in my road due to people driving to the playground. However, I also frequent that park with my children and the proximity to that amenity is something I enjoy with the possible disadvantage of not being able to park in my street at times. In addition, we also take some of the overflow parking from East Dulwich Road where the council recently removed half the parking spaces. If these problems became acute, I'd consider moving. The fact is, I love living here and parking outside my house or even in my street is not something I expect to be able to do all of the time given that I live in Zone 2.

Everyone in this community needs to live alongside one another. Shoving the problem around does not constitute a 'solution' in my book.

[Bobby P]

Very good post gmackenney, summarising a lot of the argument well.

Just a small point on the current parking situation. Melbourne Grove (station stretch) has parking completely suspended at present, and has been for many days, owing to a diversion for buses. So there's NO parking on there for residents at all currently, which will squeeze parking on neighbouring roads (Derwent, Elsie etc.) more than usual. So I'm not surprised that it's bad now.

If I were cynical, I'd say politically it's a jolly good time to have a parking consultation for people living on these roads (ending on Nov 11th), whilst the situation is at its most acute...

[peterstorm1985]

Bobby P Wrote:

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

>

> If I were cynical, I'd say politically it's a

> jolly good time to have a parking consultation for

> people living on these roads (ending on Nov 11th),

> whilst the situation is at its most acute...

I'd say you were a highly intelligent individual