E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[first mate]

northlondoner- hear, hear.

[Zak]

News from the Exhibition at Grove Vale Library.

We went to the exhibition today and had the chance to talk to three officers, all of whom are wedded to the idea of "needing to manage kerb space" in the Borough. There were a couple of things that they had to say, that forum readers will find interesting:

* When quizzed about exactly why Southwark have intitiated this particular consultation about bringing in a CPZ, they explained that it was as a result of the number of people who had been in touh with the council about parking problems. When pressed on how many people that was, we were told it was around 50 over a period of 3 or 4 years! So few - and they didn't even seem to know if they were all diferent people! So you now know that it's nothing to do with their looking for an opportunity to generate a new source of revenue!

* They went on to explain that if enough people were to object to the proposal,then it wouldn't be implemented. They cited a recent consultation in Bermondsey where they'd had a petition against the CPZ with over 1,000 signatures and they subsequently abandoned the planned CPZ

So above all. if you don't want a CPZ then it seems that one fruitful strategy is to ensure that there are as many people objecting to it as possible - and it shouldn't be left up to Southwark keep count of the objections! There needs to be an independent public record.

Elsewhere there's a post listing the roads where a petition is going round. Those of us who object, need to make sure that all affected roads are covered and that the signed petitions are centrally collated. If you think your road isn't covered then Email the person ( scroll up) who is co-ordinating it. Petitions often don't seem to work, but it seems that this is one situation in which they might.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The only way to make those struggling to park outside their houses happy, would be to provide them with an allocated space. Well you don?t own the street outside your house, It is not private property. This is fundamentally the problem with a CPZ- You pay for a permit and then struggle to find a parking spot anyway. It is not going to satisfy anyone. What it will do eventually, is result in everyone having to pay for the privilege of parking their car on the street. As others have pointed out, CPZs once introduced, have a way of expanding until entire areas are covered, which has a negative impact on local businesses.

[sillywoman]

Zak Wrote:

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

>

> Elsewhere there's a post listing the roads where a

> petition is going round. Those of us who object,

> need to make sure that all affected roads are

> covered and that the signed petitions are

> centrally collated. If you think your road isn't

> covered then Email the person ( scroll up) who is

> co-ordinating it. Petitions often don't seem to

> work, but it seems that this is one situation in

> which they might.

Zak - I can't find this. Lots of suggestions for a petition, but can't find a post that says there actually is one. Please could you post a link to the relevant post?

I live in Trossachs Rd and, along with gsirett, we plan to petition the residents of Trossachs, Tarbert, Glengarry, Thornecombe & Hillsborough early next week on this subject, but if someone else is already doing this then we don't want to waste our time repeating work already done. If they've done a petition but haven't yet done these roads then maybe we can join our petions together?

[Chener Books]

From the exhibition:

How many residents' parking spaces will there be?

507

On what parking space length was this calculated?

5.5 metres

Why was this chosen?

It is an industry standard.

Will individual parking bays be marked?

No.

How were residents' cars indentified on the day of the street survey?

Car registration numbers were logged at 6am and entered into MicroMatch software. These were deemed to be residents' cars. If one of these cars changed parking location within the proposed CPZ during the course of the survey it was still identified as a resident's car.

Will the number of residents' parking permits sold be limited to the number of spaces (507)?

No.

There will be limits of one permit per person and three permits per household.

Experience of other London CPZs is that problems do not arise until permits reach 130% of spaces.

Will permits still be sold after the (569) 130% problem level is reached?

Yes.

[landellsrd]

Hi James-

"Hi chener books,

My wife runs the family car and she can park it within 5m. Amazing parker. "

I dont really appreciate your thinly veiled sexism. You and Cherner Books might find it hilarious (or maybe Cherner Books isnt that pathetic, in which case your attempt at 'buddying up' to him has fallen kinda flat) but I dont.

I'm completely against the CPZ, I live outside the zone but still in SE22 and my reason is that it WILL expand to include all of ED and that will change the easy comfortable way we all go about our lives, visiting the shops and cafes, visiting friends, getting the kids to and fro, working hard etc.

I have also lived under a CPZ and paid almost every year ?100 when my car was clamped at 6am the very 1st day my permit expired. It was usually some odd day like April 17th and I never remembered. Add to that the worry and faff of any friends visiting, oh do i have any permits, and deliveries or tradespeople.. etc. It's not nice, trust me. It's one more part of your life controlled by rules and regulations. So it wont affect my street, at first- but it's only a matter of time until it will- in Brixton it expanded and expanded and expanded to where Elm Park Road (a 25 minute walk to the station) was engulfed.

I do vote in local elections and my vote will NOT be going to any party that supports this scheme.

[Bobby P]

I've attempted to set up an E-petition against the CPZ on Southwark Council's site. The petition has to be approved by the Council, so am waiting to hear back on whether they approve it.

If they do approve it, I will publish details here so that those on here opposed can sign (and pass to others). If they don't approve it, I guess I will wonder why...

James, I imagine that as this is Southwark's official petition form, this would hold some weight if we manage to circulate widely enough and get enough signatures.

I'm interested in hearing on this forum about a physical petition going round doorsteps (on neighbouring roads too). Haven't seen sight of this and not sure who's doing it, but it is a very good idea.

If Zak's excellent report from the Grove Vale meeting is correct, a) the Council officers there were clearly in favour, b) their reasons for trying to implement this (i.e. the number of resident complaints about parking) were extremely shaky, and c) a petition against the CPZ which gains lots of traction will actually be taken into account and could prevent it.

[gsirett]

Bobby P Wrote:

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

> I've attempted to set up an E-petition against the

> CPZ on Southwark Council's site. The petition

> has to be approved by the Council, so am waiting

> to hear back on whether they approve it.

>

Bobby, I tried to do EXACTLY the same on Wednesday. Haven't heard a peep from Southwark Council after the email saying "we'll consider your petition". Strange that.

Is soutwharks shameless promotion of this, whilst maintaining a veil of "consultation", verging on corrupt ?

I don't want to accuse people of such things, but "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.........it's probably a duck"

[James Barber]

Hi bobby, grosser,

The advice I've given to people is call on your neighbours, ask them whether they agree or disagree with controlled parking on their street, if they do whether the heavy or lite versions, and whether if a neighbouring street they'd want controlled parking on their street. By capturing those for and against you make such a petition look more credible. This is exactly the same advice I've given to those in favour who've asked.

Hi landellsrd,

I'm married to a women who does most of the families driving and she's much better at it than me.

I'm not sure why this makes me sexist?

Equally if I had a civil partner and they could so park and were better then me I'd have said e same thing.

[mastershake]

ok so now we get 'this is a blunt tool for a compelx situation'. but as yet i see absolutely no suggestions as to what can be done about parking when 9 times out of 10 in the daytime i have to park at least 10 minutes' walk from my own house, purely so people can park near the station for their commute.

and...

Maybe Mastershake, there isn't an answer......

Maybe living in a densly populated area area 4 miles from central london, you shouldn't expect the right to park directly outside your home. I often can't, so I have the same issues as you, and I'm outside the proposed scheme.

I accept it as part of city life.

i don't expect the right to park outside my house. I dno't think many who support a cpz do either. what i do expect is to be able to park my car somewhere vaguely near my house. and as it stands, this is incredibly rare on weekdays.

What we all know WILL happen is that my situation is going to get much worse if this scheme goes ahead, along with 1000's of other people around the fringes. The only solution to THAT problem will be to create another CPZ,and then repeat until we join the edge of the one proposed in North Dulwich and SE LOndon is one big CPZ......i promise that you won't be as bothered about whether you have to walk 100m to your house then

sorry, but i don't fine the '100m' thing helpful in terms of tone. I regularly have to park a lot further than 100m away. others in the same area don't seem to have this problem, but I'd wager that's because they by and large don't drive in the daytime.

I lived in herne hill before this. a cpz was imposed which only chatged for parking 12-2. local businesses weren't hit, commuter parking stopped being a problem (it was a serious problem before), and people were fairly happy with it as far as i can tell. I'm sure many of you have had bad experiences with a CPZ in the past. but there's a reason people support them and it's because they will make the status quo better for those worst affected; and yes, the CPZ might get slightly larger (it's really very small as it stands, around 5 minutes' walk to the station, not enough to deter commuters) but this will, again, help wiuth the problem of commuter parking.

[peterstorm1985]

mastershake Wrote:

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

>

> I lived in herne hill before this. a cpz was

> imposed which only chatged for parking 12-2. local

> businesses weren't hit, commuter parking stopped

> being a problem (it was a serious problem before),

Mastershake: Do you have the stats of any survey carried out at Herne Hill prior to the CPZ going in? The reason I ask is that the survey carried out in the proposed ED CPZ area does not suggest that the commuter problem is a great enough proportion such that the removal of these cars will result in sufficient freeing up of spaces to justify the cost to residents - not when you consider the reduction in actual spaces that a CPZ creates. Indeed, as the survey did not separate out commuters from other non-residents, it is wholly possible that the situation will be worse.

I am confused as to why you have to park 10 minutes from your house in the day time as there are always spaces within less walking distance of the station (as confirmed by the survey).

[BrandNewGuy]

mastershake Wrote:

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

> ok so now we get 'this is a blunt tool for a

> compelx situation'. but as yet i see absolutely no

> suggestions as to what can be done about parking

> when 9 times out of 10 in the daytime i have to

> park at least 10 minutes' walk from my own house,

> purely so people can park near the station for

> their commute.

I'm not being flippant, but maybe doing nothing about the parking is the least worst solution. Proponents of the CPZ need to show why it would be better than the status quo. They've failed in that so far, as this thread testifies.

[Andrew1011]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> Proponents of the CPZ need to show why it would be

> better than the status quo. They've failed in that

> so far, as this thread testifies.

If by proponents you means the people who live in the proposed CPZ area who are directly affected they clear don't need to show in terms of the decision making process why something would be better than the status quo.

I'm generally in favour of a trial period of a CPZ which operates between 12 and 2pm and nothing I've read on this thread has in any way persuaded me to change from that view.

[BrandNewGuy]

Andrew1011 Wrote:

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

> BrandNewGuy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Proponents of the CPZ need to show why it would

> be

> > better than the status quo. They've failed in

> that

> > so far, as this thread testifies.

>

> If by proponents you means the people who live in

> the proposed CPZ area who are directly affected

> they clear don't need to show in terms of the

> decision making process why something would be

> better than the status quo.

Really? I'm confused. You're saying that even if there's no evidence that the CPZ would improve the situation, you'd still be in favour of it?

[gsirett]

NEWSFLASH from Grove Vale Library

(I did the following calculation with the nice chap from Southwark in the library yesterday)

There are currently safe 691 parking spaces available in the proposed CPZ area (although, amazingly, they did not have this figure anywhere. I had to work it our with the help of the very nice council chap)

I think the figure being banded around is is c.20% commuters (although, according to said nice chap, that does also include the girls working in GM?s, some of the people working at the hospital, and the nice man from Caf? Mirto)........so

20 % of 691 is 138. Equals 138 commuters. This leaves (stay with me on this).......

553 residents are currently able to park in the zone.

The scheme proposes 507, yes you read it right, 507 residents spaces

THAT IS A REDUCTION IN 46 PARKING SPACES FOR RESIDENTS.

Residents of proposed CPZ area.......still sure you?re lives are going to get better?

[Andrew1011]

> > BrandNewGuy Wrote:

> >

> Really? I'm confused. You're saying that even if

> there's no evidence that the CPZ would improve the

> situation, you'd still be in favour of it?

You clearly are are confused because that's not what I said.

I am clear from my own experience there is a problem with parking, particularly by commuters, in the road where I live which is within the proposed CPZ area. I also suspect that the people living here also feel the same. Hard evidence and proving beyond doubt to others is not required in advance of a trial period. The trial itself will provide the hard evidence for or against a permanent CPZ.

[bonaome]

a trial period of a CPZ

I've never heard of one being removed once instated.

I've never known one not expand, once instated.

[Moos]

mastershake, if you live near the station you live around 6 minutes away from my house, and there's always parkig available.

[James Barber]

I'm amazed.

It's clear from the evidence that controlled parking will resolve the parking pressures for residents in the proposed streets but it would be at the expense of free parking.

I think denying the parking pressures problem is wrong. Accepting the hassle of controlled parking And any knock on affects is a serious issue.

[gsirett]

Who's denying a problem James?

The 45 people who, in 3 years, have asked you to introduce this? Or the 1000's of people who's lives that your scheme is about to make worse.

I think you owe the people who voted for you some honesty: this is not about those 45 people, it is a political agenda to reduce car usage ( which I don't necessarily disagree with), faciltated by a new revenue stream for the council. Just start being honest with people please

[Andrew1011]

bonaome Wrote:

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

>

> I've never heard of one being removed once

> instated.

> I've never known one not expand, once instated.

I think an example has already been given somewhere on this thread.

[gmackenney]

Note also the 'unsafe' spaces that are being used informally today (e.g. parking over driveways). Under the CPZ residents will need to make a choice - add a yellow line (losing the space, but retaining use of their driveway) or add a CPZ space (losing guaranteed access to their driveway). Either way, a parking space is lost and those cars will need to park somewhere (either inside or outside the zone).

I also visited the event at GV library yesterday. At the time I was there, quite a lot of heated exchange (not from me!) was taking place, all of it firmly in the against camp. All of the arguments put forward have already been put forward on this forum. I also spent quite a bit of time looking at the detailed data with Paul Gellard. Clearly there are parking pressures in certain streets - that's not disputed. What's being discussed more is whether the CPZ will help those residents. What is clear, however, is that there will be a disproportionately negative effect on certain streets in proximity to the CPZ almost immediately necessitating its extension (e.g. Everthorpe, Oglander etc.)

There were a couple of things which came out of my visit yesterday:

- The parking team are aware of parking displacement issues, but their only answer in response was that the likely outcome would be residents in affected streets be consulted (i.e. the CPZ would extend). Even from the outset, the guys designing this thing are quite clear that it is going to cause displacement and therefore the CPZ will likely grow if it is established.

- They also acknowledge that the design is somewhat illogical with respect to the streets in the V-shaped cutout (Oglander, Everthorpe etc). They would have preferred to include additional streets including Oglander, Everthorpe etc, but the available budget does not allow.

- They stated that there isn't huge parking pressure currently in the streets north of Grove Vale. This begs the question why they're included.

- It is council policy to introduce CPZs - other's at the event can back up this claim - just in case you're in any doubt as to the council's agenda.

I've also noticed something in the data. All of the streets appear to 'lose' residents throughout the day. e.g. Derwent starts with 62 residents, but by 20:30, 10 residents are still missing. That 10 feels somewhat high to me - surely most will be home by that time? It is my feeling that such residents are counted as 'Visitors' when they return. I'm going to be putting this question to Paul Gellard via email.

[northlondoner]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> I'm amazed.

> It's clear from the evidence that controlled

> parking will resolve the parking pressures for

> residents in the proposed streets but it would be

> at the expense of free parking.

> I think denying the parking pressures problem is

> wrong. Accepting the hassle of controlled parking

What about the increase of "parking pressure" ( hideous phrase) on streets bordering the cpz ? And I asked you directly about the council's legal position should you insist on trying to foist this upon us on the basis of a laughably skewed, deeply flawed consultation process. Would you answer please ?

> And any knock on affects is a serious issue.

[Zak]

I wrote earlier today about someone who is co-ordinating the collection of signatures from those opposing the CPZ in surrounding roads.

Her post appears below and if anyone wants to take on any other roads, then I suggest you contact her. You can scroll up to her message on 25/10 @08.22 and PM her.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________-

Ris2011 Wrote: 25/10/2011 08:22

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

As noted on my previous post we are collecting

signatures from the surrounding roads of the CPZ

to show Southwark that many people in East Dulwich

object to this proposal. Thus far i have had

volunteers (including myself) to go around the

following roads:

hinckley

gowlett

keston

Nutfield

Archdale

Frogley

Northcross

Oglander Road

If you live on a street affected and want to stop

southwark getting this proposal through please PM

me and i will send you the template.

Thanks

[first mate]

Would it also be possible to have an online petition- here?. Okay it won't be totally kosher, but admin would probably be able to see any suspicious activity (multiple votes from same IP etc..?).