E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[intexasatthe moment]

" The second is 'shock' that consultation is not a vote. If you are 'shocked' by this there is no helping you."

Hugeuenot - not everyone springs forth into the world with a fully formed intellect .

Some of us learn things as we go along ,some realisations come as a shock .

Why adopt the view that there's "no helping " such people ? ( I'm not quite sure who or what they're being helped by and with ,though I'm fairly sure you'll tell us )

[gmackenney]

Thirdly is the aggression and baseless, nasty accusations being laid out on this forum by people who live nowhere near the zone. These are clearly made in the contributor's own (commuter) interest

Those living immediately adjacent to the zone (e.g. me) and those living within the zone are unlikely to commute to it. Are you seriously telling me that if I live on Oglander or Ondine Road that I'm going to get in my car and drive to Tintagel to drop my kids off at school or park in Derwent to pick stuff up from the bakers? A large proportion of contributors to this thread are concerned residents in the immediate area. I accept that there are some (such as yourself) that live nowhere near the affected area.

What's is also missing from your commentary is that the overwhelming majority of people within the zone have rejected it. I fully understand that a consultation is not a vote, but it should stand as a reasonable view of public opinion (discounting for a moment the numerous signatures on petitions that have been collected).

What is antagonising me in particular (and I suspect others) is that James Barber stated before the consultation result was that the opinion of those within the CPZ zone would carry more weight for him than those outside. Now that the consultation results are in and do not show support for the CPZ, he is trying to make the figures fit his argument - something that I and other antis were accused of earlier in the thread.

The fact is that most of those anti CPZ would not have a leg to stand on if the consultation result went the other way - there would be no need to argue - the CPZ goes ahead with the backing of those living there. However, because of the bias shown by the council towards introducing this scheme and the thinly disguised motive of revenue generation, the anti guys are having to put in a disproportionate amount of effort in to get their voice heard versus those pro CPZ - hence the frustration. It shouldn't be like this - the guys in the zone have spoken and have said they don't want it.

For Giles - thanks very much for your efforts on this - I listened to your radio interview and was impressed at the eloquent argument you put forward on it.

[Bobby P]

Giles was indeed very succinct and clear in his short radio interview - it's not easy to get points across well in the time allowed, but he did a very good job. Mr Hargrove on the other hand obfuscated and stumbled in his responses, perhaps unsurprisingly as he was trying to defend the indefensible.

We must all make sure to turn out at the Community Council meetings on 10th Jan and 24th Jan (details in first mate's post above), as well as writing again to Councillor Hargrove, local MP etc. to demand they heed the results of their own consultation and drop the CPZ altogether.

[first mate]

n a letter on the 17th November Councillor Peter John stated:

?Please be assured that if the objections outweigh support, then a CPZ will not happen?.

Perhaps the councillor does not understand the way the process works either.

[Gidget]

Re attending the council meetings, any chance of sharing rides with other people?

[bil]

Reading this (well some of it, the 32 pages will take too long) makes me a little sad. The CPZ's are just putting a plaster on the wound and the underlying issue will continue and affect the neighbouring areas in domino effect. It amazes me that we live in zone 2 London and use our cars so frequently because our alternatives are not suitable. Why do "we" drive to the station and what can be done to reduce it? (CPZ's don't really reduce it, just move it elsewhere).

I have friends who live in central and north London who don't have a car or use them infrequently e.g. visiting family because the transport is frequent and for the most part effective. We have a reasonable bus network but it takes 1 hour to get into London by bus (probably half of that journey is static on walworth road). In the real world of Southwark there isn't enough money to address the public transport issues that might really sort out congestion around herne hill, ED, camberwell, Denmark hill, peckham rye, ladywell, lewisham, deptford etc..but some fresh ideas are needed...

p.s. reason I said "we" is that I use trains/stations infrequently (thankfully). I drive to work - which is faster and cheaper than taking the train but I also drive when I go out in the evening and go to the shops occasionally.

[mynamehere]

I don't live in the CPZ and I didn't respond to the questionnaire. I do live in Southwark and I am affected by decisions Southwark respresentatives make.

Peter John earns almost ?56,000 and Barrie Hargrove earns almost ?44,000 two of the highest paid council representatives. Mr Hargrove has at least two important portfolios: Title: Cabinet Member for Transport, Environment and Recycling. Party: Labour. Ward: Peckham.

For Borough recycling he chose Veolia FT Veolia article Sat the 7th Jan

recycling as money making opportunity: GO DUTCH

an unremarkable decision at best but more likely an uninformed and wrong decision. In parking Mr Hargrove continues that management style of unremarkable, ordinary and shortsighted. The council objectives of reducing cars and traffic and raising money are dealt with entirely by ticketing stationary vehicles with lightening strikes on the unwary. As for the environment look around you... I see unremarkable new build, no new technology, green space under constant threat and councillors standing in front of, for example, the East Dulwich Baths renovation captioned look how great we are. Well let's consider the East Dulwich Baths: the heating/ cooling doesn't work, the building blazes with electricity consumption, there's little green technology, the roof leaks, there is no attention to getting details right. What exactly does Southwark Building Control know about modern building engineering and design or all the tricks and economies of rennovating old build to the highest standard of design and technology for the least money?

To allow yourselves to be divided and be conqured on local issues to become frantic on this CPZ and ignore other posts that have gone through unnoticed eg that the green space behind Sainsbury's will be divided up and built on (increasing congestion in exactly the area of the CPZ you all care about it) or the garden centre will be built on (more congestion) and transit fares have gone up (people switch back to cars). Well

My concern is only at the bungling simple ordinaryiness of the people we elect. No one seems to know how to access and process and cross reference and use the mountains of data that exist on all these important issues.

[bil]

Do we know where the commuters who are parking in these areas live? are they coming from other parts of SE London in zone 2 or zone 3 such as C-palace, sydenham etc or are they local e.g. near dulwich library (still ED but a good distance from the station). there are still a few other stations in zone 2 that are not in CPZ's

From dulwich library the buses can be congested and the wait can be 15-30 minutes at times. Factor in the 10-15 ride to ED station or 15-20 mins to denmark hill. Total journey min 20-30 mins to ED station- the time it would take to walk. To drive, park and walk 10 minutes! I would imagine that would take 10-15 mins- car wouldn't even have time to heat up. Its no surprise people drive and park.

suggestion??- CPZ from 7-9am mon-fri- only residents and zipcars can park- then southwark help set up a website with zipcar to encourage people to share zip car journeys to the station (very loose idea)

.....or just improve the frequency or capacity of bus services across SE London

could government encourage employers to support flexible working hours & working from home etc..

i.e. the bigger picture

[Huguenot]

I understand a few of them come from Scutari Road ;-)

[gsirett]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> I understand a few of them come from Scutari Road

> ;-)

Stop exaggerating, you should get a job as James barbers assistant.

There is one poster on this thread who has said he's from scutari. Most seem to be from I. Or around the proposed cpz area.

And if "mr scutari" is involved in this area, uses Lordship lane for his shopping, maybe has kids at school , etc then he is Aslo a stakeholder and should speak up

[Huguenot]

I agree that commuters hold a stake in the outcome of the CPZ debate, and their opinion should be weighted accordingly.

The only thing I know about Mr. Barber is that he's a hardworking chap who doesn't deserve to be libelled, abused or intimidated simply because he hasn't made up his mind on the CPZ - and wants to make sure he also takes into account the views of those who have requested one.

Those who aren't supporting a CPZ should graciously accept that not everyone shares their views, and should also recognise that a '1 hour' solution is unlikely to impact anyone but commuters - with local traders and shoppers negligibly affected by the scheme.

The only people entitled to moan about the cost of the scheme or the impact on their own convenience are the ones inside the zone.

The only thing that people outside the zone can complain about is the 'edge' effect - and the experience from Herne Hill is that this has been vastly exaggerated on this forum.

Your own proclamations, Giles, about conspiracies and vendetta are wholly irrelevant.

[Lynne]

If there were fewer estate agent cars it might help. My record is 35 in three neigbouring streets. If there were CPZs, jut out of interest, how many permits would they be allowed?

Lynne

[first mate]

Do the estate agent cars park primarily in the streets around the station?

[first mate]

In November Councillor and CPZ decision-maker, Barrie Hargrove, ;

Thank you for your comments and concerns. I am copying in Tim Walker, our Senior Engineer, who is responsible for collating responses to the consultation.

Both Tim and myself are essentially neutral on the outcome of this. As a responsible local authority we do recognise that the ever growing numbers of vehicles on our roads is becoming increasingly unsustainable and that restrictions on commuter parking is one way to combat this.

However, our policy is to install Controlled Parking Zones only where residents want them. If the outcome of the consultation is that residents do not think the benefits of a CPZ outweighs the possible disbenefits"

[fredricketts]

Here lies the root of the problem, and this is from the Politicians. This is the new planning laws at work.The predictions for east Dulwich are an extra 6,000 people on top of the current 33,000. God knows where they'll all go. Also all the political parties are avoiding the population problem of a predicted extra 1 million people living in London within the next 10 years needing an extra 500,000 homes. This prediction is mostly from immigration of other Europeans

[buddug]

Huguenot wrote: "Those who aren't supporting a CPZ should graciously accept that not everyone shares their views."

Hello? Surely you meant: "Those who support a CPZ should graciously accept that not everyone [in fact the majority] shares their views." Or am I missing something?

[first mate]

In October poster ali had this to say on a personal expereince of introduction of CPZ in Herne Hill

I used to live in a flat in Herne Hill - a good 10-15mins walk from Brixton tube station.

Lambeth council introduced a CPZ around the tube station, so all the drivers that were parking close to the tube, began parking on roads out of the CPZ that were a 5 min walk from the station

So Lambeth council introduced MORE CPZ's,this time on those streets that were a 5 min walk away from the tube. So drivers started parking in the roads that were a 7 minute walk from the station. So Lambeth council introduced MORE CPZ's on the roads that were 7 min walk from the station. So the cars started parking on the roads that were a 10 minute walk from the station.... you see where I'm going with this.

Now my flat, a good 10minute+ walk from the station has a CPZ. AND ALL THE ROADS IN BRIXTON HAVE CPZ's. Traffic wardens go up and down all day on their scooters, catching people out and ticketing them. And you cannot park anywhere. It's a totally hostile environment. Furthermore, visitors permits that were once quite reasonably priced, have gotten more and more expensive and I think I'm not wrong in saying that trader parking permits are now ?25+ per day. So when you want the plumber to come fix your boiler, add another ?25 to that bill.

While I sympathise with those that have trouble parking outside their houses (I sometimes have this because of the local pub!), the trouble is that if this is introduced, it will gradually roll out until all the streets have CPZ's and none of us will be able to park anywhere except on our small allocated patch of road and we'll all be charged for the privilege. You won't be able to pop along to the Leisure Centre, the post office, a cafe, to the dentist, to the doctor - because unless you live on that street, you won't have a permit. All the streets will have CPZ's eventually. Please say no to this.

[James Barber]

I used to live on Brixton Hill 20+ years ago. The parking was horrendous there and then. It was a 5 min stroll down to Brixton tube. I'm not sure we're fortunate or unfortunate in not having a tube station. But we don't, so the attractions of East Dulwich for comjuters are not the same order of magnitude or likely to rippled outwards the same.

The proposals are also for 1hour controlled parknig rather than all day. But it would still change the character to some degree and have some risk of spread and it might not work have the desired affect.

[first mate]

James,

The whole scenario is wide open, as you say. It may or may not have the'desired' effect and that is what is so perturbing about the whole thing. Plus the notion of 'desired effect' is also a moveable feast/famine.

[gsirett]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> I used to live on Brixton Hill 20+ years ago. The

> parking was horrendous there and then. It was a 5

> min stroll down to Brixton tube. I'm not sure

> we're fortunate or unfortunate in not having a

> tube station. But we don't, so the attractions of

> East Dulwich for comjuters are not the same order

> of magnitude or likely to rippled outwards the

> same.

> The proposals are also for 1hour controlled

> parknig rather than all day. But it would still

> change the character to some degree and have some

> risk of spread and it might not work have the

> desired affect.

I used to live in Clapham. The parking there was horrendous too. Could nver get parked anywhere near the flat.

The difference was, it used to cost me ?100/ year for that, I got clamped and had to pay the plumber extra money.

A CPZ hadn't fixed that problem either.

James - it's good that you're back in the debate. I guess, now you're at least acknowldgeing some disadvantages, it's time to work out how to decide on this issue. I know, lets have a consultation and ask local people what they want.

Also, lets get them to write to their councillors or create petitions if they object. Lets ask local businesses. Lets use all these things to judge public feeling.

Whats that you say? "we've done that already". Ah, fantastic. What were the results then?

[Huguenot]

Gsirett, you must have missed someing somewhere?

Firstly, It is apparent that within the consultation and the petitions, the debate has actually moved on from simple counts to the relative weights of the interested parties.

With a 1 hour arrangement traders are negligibly affected, commuters are the exploiters, and Herne Hill shows us the 'edge' residents are unlikely to be affected to the degree they claim.

Their views should be weighted accordingly.

Secondly, as the financial crisis has taught us, and however unreasonable it may seem, the general public tend to run with things that seem to give them immediate gratification rather than their long term benefit.

Whether it's crazy borrowing beyond their means, or rejecting vehicle regulations, the public 'feeling' sometimes need to be tempered with long term planning and insight.

This should also be weighted accordingly.

[Carrie]

Even with a one hour experimental CPZ arrangement the residents in the streets surrounding the one or two street experimental zone are going to be adversely affected.

For example - a resident on Tintagel may well baulk at the cost of paying ?125 for a permit when he can easily park just round the corner on Elsie Road for free. However, if that resident works normal business hours, commutes by public transport, and normally only uses his car at weekends then, in order to avoid a ticket during the experimental one hour CPZ Monday to Friday, he is likely to park his car on Elsie Road on a Sunday and move it again the following Friday eve/Saturday morning. This means that a parking space in Elsie Road would be "taken up" for 5 full days for the sake of 5 hours controlled parking time.

Surely the best solution would be to "tidy up" the roads by removing lines and unused bays as proposed in Option 2 (although not quite sure why this has not been done already) and make Tintagel a one way street with no entry from Grove Vale, which should deter some of the opportunistic shopper/charity shop drop off parking.

[buddug]

First Mate quoted a previous poster as saying: "It's a totally hostile environment." That is spot on, financially (especially when it comes to workmen and deliveries) and in terms of stress. We shouldn't have to put up with this in our own streets. I for one wouldn't relish seeing parking 'officers' strutting (or scootering) up and down my street ready to pounce on the slightest infringement. There are numerous documented horror stories of residents with parking bays being fined or clamped in them, as that poster also verified, because the council claims they haven't paid on time (you have to keep renewing it every year - why, if not to try and catch people out) even when they have, or their car is an inch out of the bay, etc etc.

[bil]

?125 per annum is too much for the residents; I feel sorry for those (that will be) affected. Especially for option A (2 hours per day). Is this a set southwark fee? ?10-30 per annum for residents is more than enough.

[Penguin68]

ED is a community ? the vibrancy of this forum, and the fact that it attracts contributors from far away (such as New Zealand) supports this and suggests that it is a community which is not just made up of residents, but includes former residents, visitors to, worker in, shoppers in, eaters in our locale.

Its regulation (i.e. CPZs etc.) needs to take account of that broad constituency ? because it is that broad constituency which makes living in (and being in) ED so rewarding ? it is the community, with its shops, its restaurants and pubs, its businesses, its schools and so on which makes it worthwhile living here.

Suggestions made (including by those no longer remotely connected physically to ED, but still sufficiently part of the community to want to comment), that it is just domestic residents who ?count? when it comes to decisions effecting ED, and, even more narrowly, just those residents immediately in streets being changed by decree do not seem to understand what community is, nor how it works.

Donne suggested that no man was an island, ask not for whom the bell tolls etc. ? but numbers of people seem to believe in a hugely limiting view of what community is, how it works and so on.

To suggest that people who are part of the ED community and who care about ED and their lives in it should be ignored if they don?t meet incredibly narrow and restrictive residence qualifications is (to quote the sainted Dianne Abbot) a fine example of divide and rule.

Well done, those who wish to uphold a stereotype!