E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[first mate]

The issue is East Dulwich, moreover one need look no further than Bermondsey who have also thrown CPZ out, to have a sense of what other communities might feel.

Let us focus on East Dulwich and the process here. The majority have said no, that vote against should be honoured or it makes a nonsense of the consultation process on which tax payers money was spent, and where many people went to a lot of effort to make their views known.

[Loz]

garnwba Wrote:

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

> For all those belating on that is doesn't work......Just saying.......

But garnwba, in Barnet those are almost certainly commuters in the more normally established sense. Now we are finding that the ED 'commuters' are actually local employees that will be able to purchase permits, will it still work?

Besides, the consultation has spoken and the majority should be listened to. That should have been the end of the matter.

[garnwba]

firstmate - ha ha brilliant

You moan on about James B ignoring stats, only using info that helps his argument and then when faced with some information that is pro CPZ you reply:

"Let us focus on East Dulwich and the process here"... (ie ignore anything that is pro CPZ)

Ha ha brilliant

[first mate]

The most important thing is that there is a clear majority vote against CPZ in East Dulwich. Either the consultation is relevant or it is not. If it is not, in your view relevant, then why was it carried out at tax payer expense? Do you accpet the results of the consultation or not?

[garnwba]

at no point have i stated the results are irrelevant, i think they are actually very relevant.

The consultation was just that though, a consultation - it was not a public vote to decide the outcome. The results show that the majority of people asked don't like the idea of the CPZ but this can't be taken as proof there isn't a parking problem and a solution shouldn't be found.

I was disappointed that there doesn't seem to be any action point which investigates alternative options, it seems that we are facing a A) introduce a CPZ (of some sort) or b) do nothing.... which if it ends up being option b) doesn't help those of us who are facing daily issues

It's sad as those residents who struggle to park have almost become irrelevant

[BrandNewGuy]

garnwba Wrote:

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

> It's sad as those residents who struggle to park

> have almost become irrelevant

I'll ask you the question I've asked Mr Barber twice without reply: is it possible that there is currently no "solution" that is better than the status quo? It is not the responsibility of those opposed to the CPZ to come up with a better alternative to the CPZ that is not the status quo.

Please stop suggesting that to be opposed to the CPZ is in some way ignoring the concerns of those who do see a real problem with parking near the station. In my case, I'm not ignoring them, I'm trying to weight them against the interests of all who would be affected by a CPZ. Which is what the Council should be doing. And which is what they're plainly not doing.

[garnwba]

Well i am of the mindset that CPZ's do work and it is the best solution and it would reduce commuter traffic in the station area drasticly with zero effect on trade - so i don't think anothr solution needs to be found

We just need to find a way of getting more people to like it... which is probaly cost

I suspect for every ? the permit cost is reduced, the more people will be in favour (within the CPZ area)..

Council - reduce the fee and fix it for 3 years

Hey presto a majority within the propsed zone

[first mate]

garnwba,

You seem to be saying that the consultation should have little if any bearing on actions taken by the council, in that a majority have clearly said no to CPZ. You may be of the mindset that CPZ's work, the majority is not of the same mindset.

I am alarmed by the stance that the consultation is more or less irrelevant. Councillors like James Barber seemed to suggest that the consultation was wholly relevant and would direct the final decision on the matter.

[peckhamboy]

garnwba Wrote:

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

> at no point have i stated the results are

> irrelevant, i think they are actually very

> relevant.

> The consultation was just that though, a

> consultation - it was not a public vote to decide

> the outcome. The results show that the majority of

> people asked don't like the idea of the CPZ but

> this can't be taken as proof there isn't a parking

> problem and a solution shouldn't be found.

>

> I was disappointed that there doesn't seem to be

> any action point which investigates alternative

> options, it seems that we are facing a A)

> introduce a CPZ (of some sort) or b) do

> nothing.... which if it ends up being option b)

> doesn't help those of us who are facing daily

> issues

>

> It's sad as those residents who struggle to park

> have almost become irrelevant

Garnwba, that is exactly what I was saying a couple of days ago (see below). Those of us against the CPZ are not saying there is no problem anywhere, just that the problems are very localised and not necessarily going to be solved by a CPZ (especially a very small one). After all, if you have the option of paying ?125 for the right (but not necessarily a guarantee) of parking in your street, or you can park round the corner for free, you may well choose the latter. The council knows that and relies on it - see earlier comments from james that "take-up" of residents' permits is around 40%. Assuming the other 60% of car drivers don't sell their cars, and that they don't all have off street parking, that must mean a significant number park on streets adjoining the zone. And guess what? Residents there find they can't park anymore and ask to be included in the CPZ - purely because the first CPZ has been introduced.

Personally, my feeling is that Tintagel Crescent is a combination of shop parking, school staff parking and school drop-off. None of those should be much of an issue before 8am or after 6pm so outside of those times any pressure is likely to be simply down to there being more cars owned by residents than there is space to park them. The other issues could be resolved a number of ways - eg making it a dead-end or one way so that shop parkers are deterred, and working with the school to encourage staff and parents to lift-share/cycle/walk instead of using cars.

Others have pointed out that Derwent Grove has a high proportion of converted houses, and the CPZ area as a whole has around 60% car ownership. If all houses are converted into flats, and each house has space for one car to be parked in front, you reach saturation point at 50%. Not surprising then that there is parking pressure. Obviously there are a lot of variables to that but in my view there is sufficient doubt that a CPZ would provide a solution to justify a more in-depth investigation (and something more scientific than counting cars on two days and sticking a finger in the air to guess how many are 'undesirable').

peckhamboy Wrote:

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

>

> So, please, before you blight the area with the

> horrors of a CPZ, go back to the drawing board, do

> some open-minded investigation into what the real

> causes of any parking difficulties are and then

> try to address those rather than just bulldozing

> through a convenient cash cow that makes our lives

> a misery.

>

> And do it before you lose all of the respect and

> goodwill you have built up through the good stuff

> you have done for the community here.

[Penguin68]

CPZs 'work' when these conditions are fulfilled:-

1. The number of 'resident' cars are fewer than (or the same as) the parking spaces which would be available - lots of suggestions that this wouldn't be so - supported by the fact that parking is often more difficult at night (when commuters have gone but resident cars have returned)

2. There are a large number of incoming cars (normally associated with transit commuters) - no real evidence of this has ever been produced - many 'incomers' turn out to be local business people who would be able to apply for permits anyway (and load the costs onto their charges to us).

3. There is a generally percieved problem that it is 'never' (or nearly never) possible for residents to park during the day. Reports on this forum don't support this.

As I understand it - particularly with the council's clear intention to reduce parking space available which would exacerbate condition 1 - none of these conditions are now true.

I have also lived in CPZs, and I can tell you that my life was made worse by them - equally I have a close friend in inner Kennington where the conditions above were all met and where life has been considerably improved by having a CPZ.

No one (I would guess) who is an anti for the ED CPZ proposal is suggesting or has suggested that these are never, under any circumstances, beneficial - they have been discussing the specific (except that it's now changing all the time) proposal for ED.

There may well be a problem associated with parking in streets close to the station (although when asked a lot of people said there wasn't, for them) - if it is a condition 1 problem then no CPZ proposal under the sun will 'cure' it - unless tariffs are set so high that poor(er) people living locally give up their cars. Is that what you want?

[BrandNewGuy]

garnwba,

Good luck with your idea of reducing the cost to residents - one major purpose of the CPZ is council revenue-raising, so you haven't got a snowball in hell's chance of them lowering costs.

[kford]

Hence the dubious permit fee links to a vehicle's CO2 emissions, even if the car is parked all day long.

[gsirett]

garnwba Wrote:

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

> Well i am of the mindset that CPZ's do work and it

> is the best solution and it would reduce commuter

> traffic in the station area drasticly with zero

> effect on trade - so i don't think anothr solution

> needs to be found

>

> We just need to find a way of getting more people

> to like it... which is probaly cost

> I suspect for every ? the permit cost is reduced,

> the more people will be in favour (within the CPZ

> area)..

>

> Council - reduce the fee and fix it for 3 years

>

> Hey presto a majority within the propsed zone

This isn't just about cost though. This is about balalncing the desire of some people to park outside their houses (not an unreasonable thing to want) with the impact that this scheme will have on them and many others in our community.

These many others include local businesses, those in the zone who currently dont expereince a problem, those outside the zone and others such as tradesmen and delivery drivers. All of these people, along with those who expeience parking problems, make up our community.

I've prevoiusly written: I lived under a, long established, CPZ (lambeth) It didn't guarentee a parking space, I often had to park a street away, people got clamped, people got towed and it cost ?c100 per year. It was a whole load of stress. If Lambeth had consulted to REMOVE it, I would bet (complete guess, don't jump on me) that near 100% would have said yes. But they didn't ever ask that, funnily enough.

The "edge effects" of such schemes are well documented. Put in a CPZ and people around it will suffer. Another balance.

My main gripe with this scheme has been that it won't deliver it's objectives. It's too small to stop any commuter parking (Im just outside zone, and I'm a 7 minute walk to platform 1 of ED station) and (despite southwark trying to obscure the info) THERE WILL BE A NET DROP IN PARKING PLACES - after any commuters have been removed. A lot of people have forgotton that little fact. Oh, and they will sell 130% permit/space ratio.

The 3 "out of nowhere, not consulted on" options currently being put forward would make this issue even worse. If Southwark, for example, put in a CPZ in Derwent only, that leaves 21 roads in the consulted area who are now also on that fringe. The problem is that any commuters currently using Derwent (and any residents in Derwent who doesn't fancy paying 125 PA) will just go to Elsie, Melbourne,etc,etc,etc.

I've got no data to back up this next comment, but I would guess that Derwent (with lots of flats) has got a very high number of residetns cars (i.e more people = more cars. Not scientific I know) . After Southwark have taken away quite a few of the spaces (offset with a smaller number of commuters) - what are people left with????? Answers on a ?125 postcard please

Just imagine: the top end of Derwent is CPZ whereas the bottom end of Elsie isn't. Think it through. Would any sane traffic planner recommend that if there was no hidden agenda?

Such a small scheme has NEVER been used, anywhere, before and Southwark ideitfy this as a huge risk in their report and that is why the same council officers advised that a single road CPZ just wasn't practical during the Herne Hill/ North Dulwich Consultation. But a year or so later, they actually recommend one just up the road.

Hmmmmm

I REALLY am no conspiracy theorist, but over the last couple of months I've learnt a lot about the workings of our local politicians and what drives them. I appreciate that they have to balance budgets, fundinng lines, long term plans, etc with the immediate demands of the voters BUT I will not accept these people lying, twisting and keeping their real agenda hidden.

I put my faith in the consultation. I have said numerous times: if it turns out that people want it, fair enough, I'll go with the majority, otherwise we won't . James Barber & Peter John have both said the same thing but they now have gone very quiet. Barrie Hargrove had to stop himself on the radio this moring:

BBC Presenter: "He said one in four overall wanted it, that still means three quarters didn?t, and in a democracy that means it shouldn?t happen, surely? "

Barrie Hargrove: Er.. er.. I d.. don?t think that the process is er.. is a case of whether people you know, th.. the numbers and exact numbers.. it?s a bit more of a sophisticated process than that.. it?s basically, we?ve got CPZs right across our borough and we.. we give residents the opportunity to.. to respond to a consultation and then what we?ll do is.. is come up with er.. er.. s.. some outcomes out of that and give them the chance to have further say before we.. before we make a decision.

I trusted these people. They have failed me.

[henryb]

A very eloquent post there gsirett. For what it is worth it has me swayed.

[gsirett]

henryb Wrote:

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

> A very eloquent post there gsirett. For what it is

> worth it has me swayed.

Then HenryB, I hope you'll join me at the community council meeting on Tuesday

[intexasatthe moment]

Lots of points to be considered here but one thing that many people seem to be in ignorance of is that LA consultations are not the same thing as people/consultees voting for what they want .

I was really shocked when I first discovered this ( son's school ,not in Southwark ,made an Academy despite 94% of stakeholders wishes that it should not ) and I think it's wrong and undemocratic ,but it's the case .

BH: Er.. er.. I d.. don?t think that the process is er.. is a case of whether people you know, th.. the numbers and exact numbers.. it?s a bit more of a sophisticated process than that.. it?s basically, we?ve got CPZs right across our borough and we.. we give residents the opportunity to.. to respond to a consultation and then what we?ll do is.. is come up with er.. er.. s.. some outcomes out of that and give them the chance to have further say before we.. before we make a decision.

[Siduhe]

Lots of points to be considered here but one thing that many people seem to be in ignorance of is that LA consultations are not the same thing as people/consultees voting for what they want.

Absolutely right, although that doesn't lead to the conclusion seemingly reached by Cllr Hargrove - that Southwark can then come up with some "outcomes out of that". I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but there is a legal obligation to "conscientiously take into account [the outcome of the consultation] in finalising any proposals". I completely accept this gives some discretion to take account of things other than the majority view, but (in my view) it makes it very difficult for Southwark Council to say it should not give substantial weight to the views of the majority (and a very clear majority at that).

I have worked with a fair number of local councils outside London on infrastructure projects and been involved in similar consultation processes (not in the transport area though) and am genuinely surprised about the approach which is seemingly being taken here - even though I guess we only see a part of what is going on. Doesn't reflect what I've seen other councils do at all.

[intexasatthe moment]

I wonder if London LA's are more driven by the political wishes of central government ?

There was a similar requirement that the LA could demonstrate that they had taken the outcome of the consultation into account but a legal challenge to the imposition of Academy status against such an overwhelming result was unsuccesful .

It was only necessary for the LA to show that they'd considered the outcome .

But I imagine the CPZ debate is different - not least because elected individuals have stated that they will be guided by the outcome of the consultation . ( whereas parents/stakeholders - at my sons school were clearly told throughout the process that a consultation wasn't "the same as a ballot ,you can't just vote for what you want " .)

[mastershake]

parking is often more difficult at night

I've never seen this said. it's certainly not the case for me (just outside the proposed zone to the south).

If Lambeth had consulted to REMOVE it, I would bet (complete guess, don't jump on me) that near 100% would have said yes. But they didn't ever ask that, funnily enough.

This might have been the case where you live, but it's not always the case. see for example the fairly big CPZ around king's college hospital, for instance.

on the 'Derwent and numbers of people' issue - one of the main reasons parking is so stretched around these areas is actually East Dulwich Grove, which has very little parking and lots of flats. I'd wager around 40% of the parking on my road is actually people who live on EDG. Just another factor in why volumes are so high, and why it's very often impossible to park less than 10 minutes' walk from my front door (ie it's much quicker to, for example, get to LL or the station). I don't actually mind not being able to park on my road - but that is ridiculous. and just to reiterate, more often than not in the daytime it is the case.

It's too small to stop any commuter parking

I'd agree with this. but just to reiterate what I've said a few times on here, there is a problem with commuter parking. just because it doesn't sem to make much logical sense in terms of economics, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. the same people park on my street, and walk to the station, pretty much every day.

"He said one in four overall wanted it, that still means three quarters didn?t, and in a democracy that means it shouldn?t happen, surely? "

no matter how badly the councillor answered, it's a really stupid question and is not how democracy works.

[Loz]

mastershake Wrote:

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

> "He said one in four overall wanted it, that still

> means three quarters didn?t, and in a democracy

> that means it shouldn?t happen, surely? "

>

> no matter how badly the councillor answered, it's

> a really stupid question and is not how democracy

> works.

Whilst that may not be how consultations work, surely that is exactly how democracy should work?

[sophiesofa]

When James First started posting on this forum and engaging with the community I was really impressed and grateful that someone would put so much effort into helping us... but since this thread, I am sad to say i have lost all respect for him.

James, stop twisting the so called 'consultaion' and start listening to your community, like you used to. I think you can earn respect back if you try hard enough, but at the moment you certainly don't have mine.

[Bobby P]

I think for residents this is now a matter of selfishness against considering the greater good.

Would it not be unfair for a very small number of residents on one or two hard-to-park-on streets to be granted a CPZ, which (by its limited nature) directly affects the parking of the neighbouring streets, who have voted against having a CPZ?

That of course is exactly the reason the Council is prepared to suggest a one or two street CPZ - because they know that the next-door streets will thence be parked up more heavily by people from the CPZ streets (who don't want to pay for the permit), and know that in due course the neighbouring streets will likely vote for a CPZ to ease the newly caused congestion which today they find liveable with.

A one or two street CPZ is inherently a "selfish" option: anyone who seriously wants this on their street is effectively saying "to hell with my neighbours on the next street, I don't care how it affects them, as long as I can park directly outside my house".

It may be that the one street CPZ allows them to park more easily for a while, by moving any non-paying traffic to the next door street, but in time the CPZ will have to grow to accommodate the new parking problems they've deliberately and selfishly caused on their neighbours' streets. And so parking will end up as bad as ever for everyone, including the original CPZers, but will be costing everyone ?125+ a year - no gain for any resident, only to Council coffers.

Anyone who insists on a limited CPZ in their street seems to me by definition to be selfish (i.e. not considering the consequences for their neighbours, or considering them less important than their own needs). Surely any good and fair Council should be weighing heavily the needs of the many against the wishes of the few.

[Senor Chevalier]

Bobby P you are spot on. For any street to get a CPZ you would need to count not only the votes of the residents in that street but also to consider the vote of those on neighbouring streets, perhaps weighting the neighbouring streets' votes lower if you like in reducing concentric circles. The only positive support for CPZ has been found by looking on a very granular basis at specific streets and ignoring wider views. Perhaps we should consider that we are currently all in one big unregulated free CPZ. The solution is perhaps to allow those that want the CPZ to have a mini 1 car CPZ on their doorstep for their car (and their car only) and for the whole community to have the power to enforce fines against them parking on any piece of public road outside their specified CPZ place, i.e. opt in to CPZ and you are opting out of community parking - you can't have it both ways. I wonder what the questionairre response would have been if this was the option that was on the table...?

[Huguenot]

There's several silly things being said on this thread.

Firstly is the claim that James Barber is not listening to the community. The community itself does not have one voice. There are people within the community both for and against the CPZ.

The second is 'shock' that consultation is not a vote. If you are 'shocked' by this there is no helping you. Asking someone's opinion is clearly not the same as asking them to make the decision.

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, and the use of verbal abuse in this scenario means you've betrayed the whole community that you profess to be defending. It's simply selfish bullying.

[Penguin68]

Thirdly is the aggression and baseless, nasty accusations being laid out on this forum by people who live nowhere near the zone

Er, that would be you, then?