E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[ingridcjones]

Unlike most of the people commenting here - I live in the zone. I delighted that I am going to be able to actually park near my house.... The idea that the problem is not caused by commuters is ludicrous - finding a space on a weekend is not a problem. Most complaints seem to be by people outside the zone who are concerned that their parking / commuting is more important than the quality of life for those who actually live near the station. You could easily cycle/walk take a bus... I challenge you to unload shopping with buggies and children then have to walk to your door from 3 streets away.

[Bobby P]

Those who think that they will suddenly be able to park right outside of their doors if a CPZ is introduced on their road are delusional. The parking problem will remain, with reduced spaces as road markings/bays are put in. The only difference is they will be paying a minimum of ?125 a year for nothing. Trust those who have lived under CPZ's - it's always the same.

[bugsbgone]

Living on Derwent Grove for four years I have to be extremely honest and say I have not had any real issues parking my car, granted with the odd exception of on a weekday there being no space (i can genuinely count the times on one hand in four years where I had to give up and park in adjacent roads) and the repeat offender who saves his space utilising other peoples bins (not naming names, as much as I would like to).

With the greatest of respect to you James Barber it sounds like that your mind is made up and this deeply worries me when you take into consideration the general feeling of the posts on here, and my own personal experience. You need to represent the majority but your wording suggests otherwise, again hugely worrying.

[Widdy]

Ingridcjones, there will always be more spaces at the weekend because people go away for the weekend or day and for most people who work in central London it will be the only time the car is used - so probably has no reflection on commuting parking. When I lived in a cpz I used to take the opportunity to move my car closer to my house at weekends when everyone had gone out in their cars so I didn't have to take a detour of three streets away to check it hadn't been ticketed or towed on my way to work everyday. I really don't think a cpz will make it any easier for the roads around the station (including the one I live on). A cpz brings limited (if any) benefits and huge disadvantages. I will definately be objecting. But I'm sure the council see it as a good revenue stream in these tough times, so it's probably a given....

[Widdy]

Sorry, one more thing...I also suggest before people write in support that they go and look at the reduction in having to park in designated bays will bring by looking at existing cpzs elsewhere (I think there's a cpz around Peckham rye station). As I said earlier I think the reduction in available parking will exceed the pressure created by any commuting parking.

[James Barber]

I spent yesterday with colleagues undertaking a mobile surgery on most East Dulwich ward streets in the proposed CPZ area. We'll visit the other ED streets before the consultation finishes.

Perhaps not a representative sample - people in on a Saturday afternoon. Melbourne Grove (1-63, 2-44)and Derwent Grove overwhelmingly in favour. Elsie Road 50:50. Grove vale in favour.

I should say that the 10-12 mon-fri option was the clear winner.

I highlighted that all residents should respond if they want to help decide whether it happens or not. It's great to see lots of debate here but only responses submitted to the consultation will end up in the council officials report to Councillors. And no my mind isn't made up but responses here don't show where the person commenting lives and we know some forumites provide thoughtful comments but live outside the area and in some cases even the UK.

I used to live in a Southwark CPZ area some years ago and it really wasn't that painful once I obtained some visitor permits.

[Penguin68]

and it really wasn't that painful once I obtained some visitor permits

You won't have been a poor, elderly person, or a young mum dependent on visitors - or maybe you only had a few visitors in a year and didn't have to pop double the cost if you went over your initial paltry first book offering, and maybe you were just lucky not to arrive home after a holiday and find the bay where you had been parked suspended and your car clamped or towed.

I wonder what questions you werer asking people? - anything which mainly suggested that parking outside their own house would be the result of having a CPZ will have been to mislead.

More benefit to the neighbourhood could be achieved by using the old hospital site to build a free multi-story car park than anything else - would bring people into the neighbourhood to spend money locally in shops, bars and restaurants, alleviate the parking pressure on local roads etc. etc. (And it would be somewhere under cover to sell drugs - so a win all round).

[a_m]

I live in Oglander Road. Reading gmackenney's quote from the response received from the Council, I wonder exactly what consultation/information they are referring to because in four years of living here, I have never previously been asked for my views on parking and I can assure you I would have expressed them if I had. So exactly what are they basing this consultation area on? If it is views expressed prior to four years ago, then surely they can hardly be described as current or relevant as many residents will have changed in that time, and indeed parking habits may have done also.

I am very angry that the Council has taken the decision only to contact residents living within the proposed CPZ zone to ask for their views. The purpose of consultations is surely to seek the views of people who will be directly affected by the proposed policies. Clearly for those of us living in Oglander - a road closer to the station than some of the roads that would fall within the proposed CPZ e.g. Ondine - parking would be likely to be an impossibility if the CPZ comes in. The road will become the number 1 option for commuters seeking free parking near to the station. Yet residents in the street wouldn't even know about the consultation if it was left to the Council. I will be taking this up with the Council directly as in my view this must go against the Council's consultation principles.

[peterstorm1985]

James Barber Wrote:

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

>

> Perhaps not a representative sample - people in on

> a Saturday afternoon. Melbourne Grove (1-63,

> 2-44)and Derwent Grove overwhelmingly in favour.

> Elsie Road 50:50. Grove vale in favour.

>

Did you fully explain how much they would have to pay for the CPZ?

[prickle]

James Barber Wrote:

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

>

> Perhaps not a representative sample - people in on

> a Saturday afternoon. Melbourne Grove (1-63,

> 2-44)and Derwent Grove overwhelmingly in favour.

> Elsie Road 50:50. Grove vale in favour.

> I should say that the 10-12 mon-fri option was the

> clear winner.

Did you visit every house in these roads? I ask as I live on Elsie and was in all yesterday afternoon and no one came round?

[Siduhe]

If I read the additional responses from Southwark correctly - commuter and non-res parking in two of the potential CPZ streets (which were said to have a significant problem with commuters) has now been properly assessed at 10 and 14% respectively? If so, I'm really not sure how real the benefits are - lose 10% of the cars but also a number of available spaces (due to parking bays and pay and display spaces). Is it really going to change things the way that ingrid and others think it will?

[James Barber]

Yesterday we we asking people whether they had any issues we could help them with and we also asked whether people were in favour of controlled parking or not.

If people wanted to talk about it we answered questions and I hope I was pretty unbiased in my replies.

Hi a-m,

Over the last few years people. I the area have unsolicited contacted council officers asking for controlled parking and complaining about parking pressures. For those 40+ people to reach the right offices to have their contact recorded probably means others have similar issues. The last formal consultation over a much larger area took place nearly a decade ago. My colleagues on the southern side of Grove Vale ran a survey in all East Dulwich ward about 3 years ago.

Hi Peterstorm1985,

Reading the Home Owners Council papers for the next meeting where controlled parking on estates is present the parking permits are free for the first one - but they have been running a deficit of ?550,000 pa. They're now hoping to resolve this by renegotiating the contract. The report isnt clear if the council housing parking enforcement contract has been renegotiated with the highway parking enforcement contract as the report implies one new contract saving exactly ?550,000. Another query to resolve to ensure no cross subsidy.

Hi Penguin68,

I used to live in an all day scheme. I was delighted to ensure that one of the options is a 2 hours mon-fri option which should mean most people could choose to avoid needing visitor permits.

Are you local to the area the CPZ is proposed?

One of unhappy consequences if it proceeds is likely to be a few more front gardens being turned over to car parking.

[Peckhampam]

I live in Ondine Road and my experience is I never have a problem parking during the day. The only time I have a problem is if I get home late in the evening. This to me is clear evidence that the issue is not commuters but weight of residents parking.

On a hopeful note-a friend in the Choumert/Bellenden area says they were consulted a couple of years ago about a CPZ and the majority was against so it didn't happen. So if you don't want it make sure you make your views known....and if the majority want it, I guess that is what a democracy is.

[Bobby P]

Didn't visit me (in on Sat afternoon) at No.62 even though he claims 1-63. And yes, I imagine the questions were as disingenuous and misleading as those in the online survey - something along the lines of "would you like to be able to park more easily?".

[Bobby P]

The online form for the survey is definitely "fixed", as one or two others have pointed out. There is a question asking if people want a) a 10-12 restriction, or b) a full day restriction, but no option c) of 'none'. It is a standalone question, in that the format dictates that even if you oppose the CPZ, you must put at least down, so encouraging even opposers to put the least worst answer in. The Council will then have the 'votes' they need for the 10-12 option, which is clearly what they intend to bring in initially.

James, it is really quite insulting to pretend that this is NOT a foregone conclusion, when all of your own remarks and the phrasing of the survey documents clearly demonstrate to any intelligent person where the Council's views lie (unsurprisingly). The pernicious waffle about which residents' opinions are "more equal than others" is Newspeak of the highest order, as the CPZ so clearly affects both targeted roads and their immediate neighbours. And the verbal straw poll you claim to have conducted on the doorsteps (even though I am one of those you claim to have knocked on on Saturday afternoon) is utterly worthless, as you should know, in democratic terms. By quoting these supposed remarks, you are merely campaigning on behalf of the CPZ which the Council only wants to introduce as a revenue-making enterprise (and claiming otherwise is simply dishonest).

[bugsbgone]

Sounds like a done deal to me James, I am not convinced, not in the slightest!

How does the council then justify charging ?125.00 per car per annum, a quick look down Sunday's Derwent Grove, and I can count at least 54 vehicles - let's just say 20% are visitors that leaves 42 cars x ?125.00 = ?5250 revenue plus the additional stream of income from parking fines/clamping. Tidy little sum isn't it, from nothing...

The council can't even competently clean/maintain Derwent Grove - it's a rubbish fest! So you don't fill me with any confidence at all that our interests are being put first.

All a bit take take from my point of view.

[trizza]

The following would be very interesting to know:

1) How much revenue will this generate for the Council? The statement in the consultation that it is not a money earner seems quite misleading to me - whilst the revenue may be ploughed back into traffic etc. that surely means that monies can be allocated elsewhere.

Does anyone know the total number of homes in the CPZ or could hazard a guess?

2) How many spaces will actually be lost as a result of the CPZ with the new yellow lines and other parking restrictions?

[James Barber]

Hi BobBy P,

We visited Melbourne Grove 1-63 odds numbers and evens 2-44 ie those homes in the proposed zone.

I'm sorry if you think I'm predetermined in how I will react to residents consultation responses. I'm certainly not clear on what the outcome will be. I'm sure the administration and the cabinet member Cllr Barrie Hargrove have not predetermined their views. Yes, the consultation is asking people whether they agree with the proposal or not but if residents are clearly against I will be campaign to ensure it doesn't happen.

Hi Prickle,

Only managed to visit even numbers on Elsie Road stopping at 6.30pm. Like i said we will be calling before the consultation ends.

[peckhamasbestos]

To peckhamboy's point regarding the number of residents and the available space to park, East Dulwich Road is a case in point. It consists of very large Victorian properties divided into flats. Of course the number of parking spaces in this road is going to be constrained. No CPZ will alleviate this issue - as a resident you'll still have to play 'hunt the space' but now you'll be paying for the privilege.

What makes me mad is that this detail isn't in the consultation document precisely because it doesn't support the case for a CPZ. These guys need to be held to account for putting forward a very weak case for a CPZ, surrounded with loads of waffle about yellow lines and trees as opposed to hard facts.

please let's not go down this route again.

i do not want to pay ?125 pa, plus the added inconvenience to my visitors for a cpz, which allows me the dubious pleasure of not parking in my street, yet paying through the nose for it!

please NO!

[Bobby P]

Well thanks for the response James, and I hope you do catch me in, as I'm very interested to hear your views on this (I think you know mine!). However, apparently like many others, I find a lot of fault in the way the consultation is being handled, and the online documentation.

The fact that I found out about it via this forum and not through any official correspondence from the Council through my letterbox was a bad start, and the slant of the information in the online documents is pretty weasily in its wording and decidedly one-sided in what it chooses to leave out. As one who has lived in roads which were turned into CPZ's before, I can only say it made no difference to parking spot availability for the residents, but made a huge difference in cost and stress. An extra annual tax and an oppressive regime of enforcement, but no extra benefit to the residents.

I believe introducing a CPZ here in E.Dulwich would be actively taking away from one of the things that makes the area so attractive and liveable, and would be a detriment to people's financial well-being and mental health! (I'm actually serious about the latter, as I well remember the horrible stress of having my car removed on several occasions in my last CPZ with no notice and for no reason and struggling to get it back: being in the right was no help, even though begrudgingly the towing fees were refunded months later).

(On an unrelated note, I have to agree with other posters here, by the way, that the streets in question, including Melbourne Grove, are filthy with litter at the moment - have the sweeps gone on strike?).

[peterstorm1985]

James Barber Wrote:

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

>

> One of unhappy consequences if it proceeds is

> likely to be a few more front gardens being turned

> over to car parking.

Good point James. Financially, for anyone unfortunate enough to end up in a CPZ this would by far be the cheapest solution in the long term ,and it adds to the house value.

But, guess what? It means that anyone who installs off road parking but who normally drives to work - thereby leaving a space for others to use, will then be leaving a double yellow line that no one else can park across - even less spaces for the CPZ paying residents.

(You still didn't say if you mentioned the costs when you did your straw poll in Melbourne Grove etc)

[gmackenney]

James,

Yes, the consultation is asking people whether they agree with the proposal or not but if residents are clearly against I will be campaign to ensure it doesn't happen.

My only caveat is that the views of those on the actual streets will carry more weight for me as they have to live with the parking stress. Clearly those neighbouring should be taken into account but the idea residents in Nunhead or Forest Hill have an equal weighting is bizarre.

So far, the council has not consulted with or even informed the people who live in the neighbouring streets that there is a consultation happening. First I heard of this was on this forum. This is not ?consultation? in any sense. The parking stress you refer to will not disappear ? it will simply shift to the neighbouring streets. Why then do the views of those in the proposed CPZ carry more weight than those who will bear the consequences?

I agree with the earlier poster who suggested that the CPZ will actually result in fewer spaces being available to park in (given the introduction of additional yellow lines and passing places etc) ? the question is will the offset caused by the reduction in commuter parking be enough to offset this reduction in available space? Does the parking study look at this issue at all?

And no my mind isn't made up but responses here don't show where the person commenting lives and we know some forumites provide thoughtful comments but live outside the area and in some cases even the UK.

I?ll lay my cards on the table ? I live in Hinckley Road ? one road to the east of this proposed CPZ. I?m against. I?m not alone, and I?m pretty sure a lot of the posters on this thread are close enough to this CPZ to be affected (particularly the residents of Oglander, Everthorpe etc). Perhaps some of the people posting on this thread may not be in the affected area, but it is clear that there are people who are in the affected area and expressing their opposition to this CPZ.

Your unwillingness to engage in reasoned debate about the downsides of this CPZ speaks volumes about where you stand on this issue. It is for this reason that few people immediately outside the proposed CPZ view this exercise as a consultation. The absence of hard data, a well thought out proposal and supporting arguments are the primary reasons I'm so vehemently opposed to this CPZ. You don't have to look too far to see what happens when a CPZ is established - non-resident's vehicles simply park in the neighbouring streets fuelling the growth of the CPZ. Plenty of examples of this are documented online. Would you care to comment on this point specifically?

Perhaps as a start we could have full disclosure on the data driving this proposal in the interests of moving towards greater transparency. Are you able to share some of that data here that supports the case for the CPZ?

[Moos]

I'm in the proposed CPZ but haven't had the consultation pack - clearly Southwark don't want to hear from me, but they are certainly going to, as is Harriet Harman.

I really don't want a CPZ.

Believe me, getting a CPZ doesn't mean you'll be able to park outside your house. I've lived in one before and it was an expensive nuisance - half the parking space suddenly becomes unavailable (pay & display or business only) and there's just as much competition as before for the spaces left over.

[calculus]

Yes James, I saw that 10-12am was an option in the online survey but there was no option for no CPZ. Can you explain this please? I stupidly selected that option as my 'preferred'one and now that will probably used to boost figures when I would actually have voted against the whole proposal if given the chance.

Also you wrote "Yes, the consultation is asking people whether they agree with the proposal or not but if residents are clearly against I will be campaign to ensure it doesn't happen.". Why would you need to campaign against it going ahead if people were clearly against it? Is the default that it will go ahead regardless?

I live on Matham Grove, a short walk to the station and an even shorter walk to the shops on LL. being just outside the proposed zone I feel let down that my views carry less weight than those living within the proposed zone as I will be directly affected by this.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Thanks for the heads up Moos. I didn't really pay much attention to this thread as I naively thought the streets affected were near the station. This proposal would have a huge impact on my street and no doubt would be next in the council's sights.