E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[peterstorm1985]

Penguin68, you've just jogged my brain into a bit of realisation. There are a number of homes near me that have had the proverbial loft extension. In a number of cases that extension is now home to an adult child, with or without partner. Living in the same house as parents allows car ownership to become much more affordable (insurance costs can be dramatically reduced by having a much older named driver added to the policy as it is seen to dilute the risk), and the reduction/removal of renting costs makes such luxuries more attainable.

All of this is leading me to think that the residents of Derwent Grove should be trying to negotiate with those neighbours, who don't use their cars during the week, to get them to park further away. I suspect that some, faced with the prospect of having to pay ?125 per year for the privilege of parking the other side of Lordship Lane, may be persuaded that if they did so by their own volition, the whole thing could be avoided.

[Penguin68]

All of this is leading me to think that the residents of Derwent Grove should be trying to negotiate with those neighbours, who don't use their cars during the week, to get them to park further away.

Bad idea, I believe. I had a car vandalised on Saturday night (near-side wing mirror ripped off - i.e. the wing mirror that 'faced' the pavement -so no drive-by accident) - I knew it immediately and could do something about it. If your car is parked streets away you either have to visit it regularly (which is a bit of a bother) or risk it being vandalised etc. for days before you notice. In my experience once the first bit of vandalism sets in, the car is quickly a burnt-out wreck if you don't take action swiftly. So I certainly wouldn't chose to park my car long-term well out of sight so a neighbour could get quick access to theirs. Even to save ?125 a year.

[James Barber]

Hi puzzled,

As a councillor I can only take being called a mega busy body as a compliment. Thank you.

The day I stop being interested in trying to make East Dulwich and Southwark a better place for everyone is the day I resign. And yes I'm sure I sometimes get it wrong.

I don't have a pathalogical hatred of cars. What a silly suggestion. I have a full driving licence. As a child I thought fast cars were the best thing ever and was a horrible back seater driver asking for speed - but I grew up. In East Dulwich we're fortunate that most people have lots of transport choices - walking, cycling, buses, trains, car clubs as well as cars and motorbikes.

I've just been fighting to ensure that when the new crossing on Lordship Lane go in more legal car parknig is in palce afterwards than before by removing yellow lines that frankly shouldnt have been put down in the first place. And I've ensured East Dulwich has a greater density of car club cars than anywhere else in Southwark.

But I am for 20mph speed limits on the roads people live, shop and go to school. And I am in theory for controlled parking where residents clearly want it.

Back to the proposed CPZ. The streets proposed are where people have made the most complaints to council officers.

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.

Why not a 12 month trial. Because every CPZ is reviewed at regular intervals. If it goes in and officers and councillors get complaints then it would in my mind be reviewed to be changed or removed depending on the level and problems reported.

Whatever people input it needs to cover the next 10 to 20 years. So no whinging after the fact ;-)

It was raised earlier in this thread. London Bridge station is planning for expansion and will from 2018 be able to cope with 2/3rds more passengers (currently 48M pa/ED station 1.6M pa). So for those that are really against a CPZ here you should be objecting to the Planning Application that will increae parking pressures around East dulwich station - http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9540800

Would a CPZ around East Dulwich station displace parking to North Dulwich station area - potentially yes espeically as season ticket prices are identical from both stations.

[Loz]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> It was raised earlier in this thread. London Bridge station is planning for expansion and will

> from 2018 be able to cope with 2/3rds more passengers (currently 48M pa/ED station 1.6M pa).

> So for those that are really against a CPZ here you should be objecting to the Planning

> Application that will increae parking pressures around East dulwich station -

> http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.P

> geResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9540800

Sorry, James, but did you just recommend the people of London should object to a massive increase in public transport capacity? Because it will 'increase the car problem'? Really?

Now *I'm* starting to think you are losing it!

[James Barber]

Hi Loz,

Yes it does feel counter intuitive but London Bridge expansion is only factoring in the impacts it has in SE1 not on he whole of Southwark.

I'm not sure I've fully digested the significance of London Bridge station being expanded to support 2/3rds more passengers from more frequent and longer trains. So instead of 48M passenger a year something upto 80M max. capacity a year with definite 35% growth by 2016 (presumably from the likes of the Shard etc) ie. 65M.

But for this ED station CPZ we could expect the current average 20% parking from commuters by +7% by 2016 and upto +13% when London Bridge gets close to capacity.

I'm sure this wont change anyones views either way BUT if people are aware they can't say they didn't know!

[gmackenney]

James - sorry to be pedantic, but 20% commuters and visitors. Whilst imperfect, it is fair to assume there aren't too many commuters on Saturdays, so taking the commuter+visitor number on Saturday away from the weekday leaves one with a reasonable approximation of just how many commuters there are on weekdays: 7%. Still a significant number, I agree, but are we going to lose more than 7% of the spaces in the new layout?

Do we have any idea where all these rail commuters are coming from? Looking at a map of the local area, there aren't too many places where you're much more than a mile away from a mainline station serving London Bridge (i.e. within walking distance). Honor Oak, Peckham Rye, North Dulwich, Forest Hill stations - these all cover a relatively small area.

Is ED station really that much of a destination station for commuting to London Bridge? Judging by the numbers I'd say not. Moreover, the capacity of London Bridge station won't have an impact on the capacity of ED station. It's already pretty rammed at peak time. Unless there is an upgrade of ED station as well (longer platforms etc), I can't see the upgrade of London Bridge having a huge effect. London Bridge serves most of the south coast - not just greater London.

Isn't a lot of the parking problem (aside from residents themselves) patrons of local businesses? If so, are we considering the effect on those local businesses (and the character of the area) as they start to close?

[Loz]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Loz,

> Yes it does feel counter intuitive but London Bridge expansion is only factoring in the impacts

> it has in SE1 not on he whole of Southwark. I'm not sure I've fully digested the significance

> of London Bridge station being expanded to support 2/3rds more passengers from more frequent and

> longer trains. So instead of 48M passenger a year something upto 80M max. capacity a year with

> definite 35% growth by 2016 (presumably from the likes of the Shard etc) ie. 65M.

> But for this ED station CPZ we could expect the current average 20% parking from commuters by +7%

> by 2016 and upto +13% when London Bridge gets close to capacity.

That argument is grasping at straws, somewhat. The CPZ is allegedly needed because there is no parking. You can't have a 7% to 13% increase in commuter parking if there is no parking now.

Or are you saying there isn't a problem now, but there might be in the future?

[bonaome]

I don't believe people are using the station to commute to London Bridge.

Look at the map.

If you lived near or were driving past North Dulwich you'd use it for LBG

West Dulwich trains go to VIC so for LBG you'd look elsewhere, but I'd have thought North Dulwich

Sydenham Hill trains go to VIC but wouldn't you just go to Sydenham where the trains go to LBG

Honor Oak Park - LBG

Forest Hill - LBG

Nunhead - to VIC and I think to LBG on rare occasion and with following wind, but would you really drive from unhead to ED to park near the station and get the train from there? Wouldn't you just change at Peckham Rye?

So I'm not sure where people would be driving from to get to ED to park. I'm beginning to suspect that the "commuters" actually live in ED, or work in it. Hard to imagine with all the buses that people from the south circular end are driving to the station. So maybe a lot of it is people coming to the area to work in the shops and offices, and schools.

Looking at the parking survey data provided in the pdf by Mr Barber, this might fit, but it's quite hard to interpret the data without knowing a little bit more about the enumeration method.

Edited for typos.

[gsirett]

I don't subscribe the general theories that all parking enforcement = just a revenue generator for local authority, but after reading the information provided here and having experienced similar schemes, I believe that?s purely what?s going on.

Here's my two-penneth:

1. Everybody I know who lives in a CPZ, still has trouble parking. The advantages of such a scheme provided in the consultation document are just nonsense.

2. A friend in Lambeth recently had her annual cost increased from ?120/year to ?180/year (just happens to coincide with the authirty?s need to tighten it?s belt)?.. No justification, just a 50% hike to carry on parking outside her flat.

3. The pressure on parking AROUND the proposed CPZ will only increase (thats where I live). So, I guess in a year or so Southwark will find that they have "received feedback from residents indicating that parking demand has increased in uncontrolled streets" and we'll have another consultation, this time for the surrounding streets. Give it a few years and everybody will be paying to park their car in SE22

[Loz]

gsirett Wrote:

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

> 3. The pressure on parking AROUND the proposed CPZ will only increase (thats where I live). So, I

> guess in a year or so Southwark will find that they have "received feedback from residents

> indicating that parking demand has increased in uncontrolled streets" and we'll have another

> consultation, this time for the surrounding streets. Give it a few years and everybody will be

> paying to park their car in SE22

And so... to extrapolate that further, in five years time the whole of ED will be a CPZ. There will still be the same parking problem, but lots of people will be ?250+ a year poorer. But the council will have hundreds of thousands of pounds a year more. Brilliant.

As they say, beware of what you wish for, you might just get it.

[Penguin68]

The penny drops

[gsirett]

I do feel that there needs to be a joined up protest about this (or could we ask Councillor Barber to make a judgement call on public feeling ???)

Does anybody know if there is some form of official petition tool that everybody could use? Surely if there was a petition recording peoples postcodes (of course local postcodes) that got 1000's of results (which I guess it would) then that could be used to refute the findings of the very narrow bull&$%^t consultation process?

If not, I used this to contact my local councillors easily

As an idea, should be all write to our councillors and insist that they make strong representations against this scheme?

[peterstorm1985]

It's such a shame that the survey doesn't include certainty of those commuters/non-residents. I'm guessing they didn't check all the registrations with the DVLA. Somewhere in this thread it was suggested that assumptions were made on the basis of when the cars arrived and left.

I wonder if there are any night-shift workers living down by the station? Perhaps doctors, nurses, firemen, youth workers, care-workers. I do just hope that none of them used their car on the night before those surveys and came home after 6 in the morning, and perhaps handed over the keys for their other half to use during the day. It would be so ironic if some of the 'commuters' turned out to be residents all along.

[karter]

Would i vote for Libdems after this? No sir i would not. Especially not for Jimmy thedoorknocker Barber.

Jimmy, if you come knocking at my door this evening you certainly won't be getting a treat. B)

Tell the whole story as you should be doing so and not just what you want people to hear.

[windy.g]

I live on the station end of Melbourne grove and though I can never park directly outside it is rare that I can't find a parking space nearby. In terms of the cpz being proposed to tackle commuters parking - I'm not sure that is the real problem.

Quite often at weekends it is just as busy and my observation is much of the cars are customers and staff of the businesses at that end. This weekend alone when one of the shops closed I saw 6 staff walking to nearby cars. Although this is clearly part of the problem it is concerning where these staff/ customers will park if the cpz in enforced.

[mikes bikes]

Their study says by law, revenue generated from CPZs must be invested

back into transport related improvements such as highways..............LIKE THE WASTE OF MONEY BEING SPENT AT THE COPLESTONE RD., GROVE VALE JUCTION!

[mikes bikes]

I live on copleston rd, please could you mail me your signature form template.

Any use in a demo outside the CPZ Exhition on the 5th Nov at Grove vale library????

[mikes bikes]

This cpz plan is meant to make roads safer......and yet the highly dangerous short stay parking area outside Grove vale library & all along that bend remain Completely unaltered!

[Penguin68]

This cpz plan is meant to make roads safer

It claims this, it also claims to make trees in the streets grow better as well, and no doubt birds sing more sweetly, lambs gamble more actively and all things nice happen everywhere at once.

Or, to put it another way, car owners will be punished for their presumption and the council coffers will swell, so that more lunatic anti-car schemes can be pushed through. Why, the new table by the school in Grove Vale could be raised another foot, some cars are still getting through unscathed.

[mikeb]

Is there a sanction for the creators of 'consultation' that is tendentious, partisan and perhaps even misleading?

[Bobby P]

All for some sort of action/petition against this thing (which affects the whole area), away from this bulls*** survey. Anyone know how such a thing would best be delivered most effectively so the Council took notice? It's interesting that there are people posting now who live on the roads nearest the station to say that while parking there is not easy, it's not impossible (as some would have us believe) and you tend only to need look a little further up the road, in most cases. People who want to park directly outside their own front doors on these roads will not find the CPZ helping them to do this at all.

[gsirett]

Southwark have their own petition feature on their website.

Google: southwark council petition

I'd love to get one up and running (struggling for time to set it up myself) - any volunteers?

[katie1997]

I'd gladly sign any petition against the ridiculous, ill-conceived CPZ proposal and its flawed consultation.

Thanks to the forum for helping to keep us informed of local issues, invaluable information in some instances.

[Jeremy]

puzzled Wrote:

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

> cllr barber is mega buaybody with a deep seated

> loathing of cars. he believes we should all be

> forced to ride bloody bikes like he does. people

> like barber are a menace to any sane community and

> the sooner he is voted off the council and

> anything else where he wields his prejudices the

> better.

I'm not a fan of the CPZ proposal either, but to suggest James Barber has a personal agenda is a bit cheeky. I'm guessing that you're against it because you run a local shop... which is a good reason, but it doesn't automatically mean the whole community is on your side.

[tomsav]

Cllr Barber - there are a lot of unanswered questions aimed at you on this thread. Are you withholding the answers because they don't support your pro-CPZ viewpoint? Or haven't you bothered trying to answer them because the answers would likely not support your pro-CPZ viewpoint?

Here's some more for you to ignore: You stated that Southwark's car ownership was 56%. Do you accept that ED car ownership is likely to be higher than the borough-wide average? If so, why did you quote the 56% figure?

How many cars are owned by residents of the proposed CPZ? How many parking spaces will the CPZ allow for?

On Oct 21 you wrote (regarding canvassing views of the wider community) that "the idea residents in Nunhead or Forest Hill have an equal weighting [to those in the CPZ] is bizarre". On Oct 26, you wrote: "Some other posts indicated posters concerned about the knock on effects of these proposals to Nunhead and Forest Hill." Could you find these "posts"? Because the only one I found was on Oct 21 when garnwba wrote in response of RIS2011 launching a petition: "Getting signatures from roads near the CPZ makes sense, but seriously gowlett, Keston.... i mean why don't you drum up some opinions in Nunhead, Forest Hill area as well?" Was that a deliberate attempt to smear the anti-CPZ posters, or did you just get it wrong?

You stated you would expect parking in the proposed CPZ to be 27% "from commuters" by 2016 rising to 33% "when "London Bridge reaches full capacity". Where do those figures come from?

Who came up with the proposed fees for the residents' and visitors' permits? Why not give out free or cost-basis permits to residents?

Finally, from a personal point of view, if this CPZ made a number of ED residents sell their cars, would you see that as a good thing, or a bad thing?

(Me: ED resident, 10 min walk from ED station, outside proposed CPZ, regular driver, one car household, anti-CPZs having lived under them in the past - would move out if one was brought in on my road)