E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[gsirett]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> 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.

I haven't missed anything. I STILL believe that such overwhelming public feeling (with hard data to back it up) should not be ignored. And it has. I still believe is a Council tells me it will "consult" that they are sort of obliged to read the results of that consultation.

Your Council (and certain councillors) WANT the debate to move on. It's called rail-roading or steamrolling a policy through

On your second point:I do understand that sometimes there is a greater good that needs to be addressed. Of course I do. In fact, that has really been my argument all along: lets not look at isolated parking problems: lets look at the whole community and all of the stakeholders. Lets balance all of these

But will a CPZ on Derwent Grove have any form of "greater Good"? - really ? Will it have any net envoronmental

benefit?

But this scheme is simply badly conceived. If it's objectives are truthful,it will not deliver them. The initial design will REDUCE the number of residents spaces. How will it work ?????

As for the "lite" CPZ (a CPZ on 1 or 3 streets). There is no design to commment on, becuase it's only just been thought up. Also, it is acknowledged that this has never been done before and carries sustantial risks. I (or anybody else) haven't been asked whether we want such a scheme

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?

[first mate]

bil,

Quite, and all that monitoring will cost.

Penguin68, the idea of community is as freely open to interpretation as is the idea of a consultation and what constitutes a mandate for action by the council. The goal posts move so quickly it is hard to keep up.

[Bobby P]

Even one hour a day will never be cheap. It still means that residents who want to avoid paying for it will park on the next free street, thus moving any problem there. And gradually the CPZ spreads to everywhere. Nor does it prevent the extra costs to residents of visiting workmen permits etc.

CPZ really IS a horrendously hostile environment to live in, stressful and nasty (not to mention very expensive). Just listen to those of us who've had the experience.

If that is what residents really want, then I can only assume gross ignorance or extreme masochism.

[first mate]

Bobby P,

And it will not stop there, of course it won't. It's called the thin end of the wedge- all the council need is a starting point and the thing will snowball and the permit costs will rise and rise- as shown in other boroughs.

I still don't understand why the consultation against in Bermondsey was good enough to stop CPZ, but here it is not. Is one area of Southwark treated differently from another?

[Huguenot]

"I still don't understand why the consultation against in Bermondsey was good enough to stop CPZ, but here it is not."

Where did you get that from?

No decision is made on a CPZ in ED. A consultation has been entered into, and the next step is a meeting scheduled for later this month when undoubtedly many views and arguments will be taken into account.

It's important that people don't inflame sentiment by making untrue claims.

[gsirett]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

A consultation

> has been entered into, and the next step is a

> meeting scheduled for later this month when

> undoubtedly many views and arguments will be taken

> into account.

>

> It's important that people don't inflame sentiment

> by making untrue claims.

Southwarks own website:

"The council's transport programme, funded by Transport for London , includes a parking project and consultation of residents and businesses in some uncontrolled (non CPZ) streets in East Dulwich and South Camberwell wards.

The consultation is now closed"

the 2 x community council meetings(tomorrow and 24th) can be used to express public feeling on the issues but, using southwarks own words, they are not part of their consultation.

[first mate]

James Barber has stated that Councillor Barrie Hargrove will make the decision on CPZ after the various Community Council meetings.

[trizza]

The consultation report in Bermondsey recommended not proceeding with any CPZ (see my previous post). This was because there was very little support for a CPZ. It would have been very hard to spin the results of that consultation.

I'm afraid the results of the ED consultation (whilst still anti CPZ) give the council some room to attempt to create alternative proposals.

[first mate]

On the 8th November Zak posted:

When I visited the exhibition at Southwark libary the Southwark Officer told us that the Bermondsey proposed CPZ was "defeated" by virtue of the number of people who signed petetions opposing it. It seems that if we want to defeat this proposal it''s going to be about mobilising a majority of the people affected -by the way I was told that they would take into account opposition expressed by people outside of the proposed CPZ who feel they would be adversely affected.

[trizza]

Re petitions, here is the following information comparing the Bermondsey and ED CPZ consultations:

Bermondsey CPZ

Two petitions were received during the consultation period, both against the introduction of parking

controls. The first petition was signed by 905 within the consultation area. The petition was also signed by 463 outside the consultation area or by those who didn?t provide an address.

A second petition was also received from Sherwood Gardens on 6 May 2011, this was signed by 59 Sherwood Gardens residents against parking controls.

So I think that makes a total of around say 1400 against the scheme

ED CPZ

As per the consulation report, there were 9 petitions with a total of 1826 against and 29 in favour which is more than signed the petition against the Bermondsey CPZ. I'm not going to summarise these petitions, but I think it's dangerous to draw direct parallels with the Bermondsey CPZ as many of the residents who signed the petitions live on streets outside the proposed CPZ.

The Council has not bothered (as with the Bermondsey CPZ) to count how many responses were from those in or outside the proposed CPZ. However, I doubt it's anywhere near as high as the 66% odd of those who were within the proposed Bermondsey CPZ who signed a petition against it.

Overall, comparing the two proposed CPZ's and the responses generally, I think the following points can be made:

1. There was less support for the Bermondsey CPZ from residents inside the proposed CPZ than with the ED CPZ.

2. Notwithstanding 1. the clear majority of residents in the proposed CPZ who responded to the consultation on the ED CPZ are against its introduction. However, there are a small minority of roads where the majority of residents want a CPZ.

3. There is probably more registered opposition to the proposed ED CPZ from residents or other stakeholders who live outside the proposed CPZ than with the Bermondsey CPZ.

[first mate]

trizza,

Thanks for that fair and balanced analysis of the situation.

I think if we had an assurance that the status quo would not really change overall, that the parking situation near the station was improved without a knock on effect on other streets, then we'd be okay with the proposals. However, everything seems to point to the development of CPZ creep and little improvement in parking over time, as well as permit bills that gradually increase too.

Even councillors like James Barber, who are on principle probably more for than against CPZ, (apologies James if that is not the case)appear to be saying there are no guarantees, and that introduction of even a limited CPZ scheme may not have the desired effect.

[trizza]

Thanks and I can see you point First Mate.

Ultimately, I don't think the council sees the issue of "CPZ Creep" as a problem. In fact, the opposite applies. They use the responses by people who say they are against a CPZ but would support one if it was introduced nearby as a basis on which to extend the scope of the proposed CPZ beyond streets that actually voiced support for it. Of course, this ignores the fact that these people don't want a CPZ in the first place!

It's actually quite a clever question as it allows the council a basis on which to try and shoehorn a CPZ through even when there is only minority support for the central question of whether there should be a CPZ in the first place.

It seems to me that the central issues are really: a) whether the support for the proposed CPZ from those who live within within the scheme is sufficiently strong in order to justify its introduction; and b) should the wishes of the minority of residents in a couple of streets who want a CPZ be able to determine the position for other streets who do not want a CPZ (a small CPZ confined to two roads does not really seem workable).

Other points could be made - particulary about the anti CPZ support from other residents not in the proposed CPZ, but I feel the argument will be won or lost on the central issues set out above.

The council won't give any assurances re parking and once the CPZ has been introduced it will stay.

[fazer71]

The 1 hr CZP

Good

For residents who can afford to pay the ?100 -?125

For business as shoppers can find a place to park

For the environment as old cars dissapear

For look of the area as the streets look cleaner due to movement of vehicles

For tradesmen as they can find a place to park ?though they or the customer has to pay a ?2 VERY harsh NOT ?

Bad

For commuters driving in to use the station

For people who can?t afford the ?100 -?125 pa

For anyone who want to keep an old banger sitting on the road under a cover

1 hr CPZ is a no brainer

It?s better for local people .. except the poor ?..

Maybe Southwark could subsidise the unemployed so they can park their BMW and Mercedes Convertibles for free??

[fredricketts]

Here is my reply from Tessa Jowell our Local MP.

Waste of space but here goes

Dear Tessa,

Re: CPZ in Grove Vale.

Thank you for your email and attached letter from your constituent Mr Fred Ricketts who has raised his and others concerns in relation to the introduction of the Controlled Parking Zone surrounding East Dulwich Station.

The Council carried out consultation with the residents and businesses on a proposed controlled parking Zone (CPZ) in Grove Vale (East Dulwich station) area.

The consultation closed on 11 November 201. It?s important to note that this is just a consultation and no decision has been taken to implement a CPZ. I have provided below, some background to the consultation and details on the next step.

Background.

The majority of streets around East Dulwich station do not have parking controls.

The absence of controls on the public highway means that anyone can park: for some people this is a positive whereas others find it an inconvenience.

We are aware that parking pressure is very high in the streets around the station and some of the demand can be attributed to commuters using East Dulwich station.

In 2010, the council made a funding bid to Transport for London (TFL) so that a study about parking could be carried out in the Grove vale area. This bid was part of the councils overall, annual bid to TFL for transport projects. More details about the TFL bid can be found on the following webpage. http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=1495

The Councils constitution sets out that, before consulting on the CPZ, we will discuss the consultation boundaries (and method) with the local community council. For this project we reported to Dulwich Community Council on the 15/09/11 and the Camberwell \Community Councils on the 22/09/11.

It is normal CPZ practice to consult only with those within the Consultation area.

Consultation documents were distributed to the study area (1159 properties) on 14th October 2011, with the dead line to return questionnaires detailed as 11 November 2011.

27 Street notices were erected wi8thin the consultation area to inform the local community that a parking consultation was taking place.

We also wrote to the Councils key stakeholders as part of the Consultation.

Furthermore the projects webpage was updated with the details of the consultation and details on the council?s main consultation page.

It was not possible to extend the consultation period, as the programme did not allow for this and reduces the time necessary to carry out the detailed analysis, proposed recommendations and prepare the consultation report in time for the Community Council meetings. Although the meetings are not until January, the report must be submitted before the Christmas period.

Decision Process.

A full report will be prepared that presents the consultation results on a street by street and wide area basis.

The consultation has generated a high volume of correspondence from both the residents and business inside and outside the consultation boundary. We have also received petitions for and against controls from the area. All communications received will be summarized and included in our consultation report.

I expect the draft report to be presented to the Dulwich and Camberwell Community Councils in January 2012 before a key decision is taken by the Cabinet member for Transport, Enviroment and Recycling in early 2012.

Yours Sincerely.

Councillor Barrie hargrave.

[gsirett]

>I expect the draft report to be presented to the Dulwich and Camberwell Community Councils in January 2012 before a >key decision is taken by the Cabinet member for Transport, Enviroment and Recycling in early 2012.

>Yours Sincerely.

>Councillor Barrie hargrave.

But Barrie, you ARE the Cabinet member for Transport, Enviroment and Recycling. Or did you forget that?

It would be good if Barrie Hargrove stopped pretending that there was some sort of complex "decision computer" involved in this. He decides. He reads the consultation, "listens" to the 2 x community councils and then HE decides. To my knowdge, there is no set formula, there's some stuff about "balancing needs". But: it's just him really.

So, it is pretty strange that he keeps forgetting it's him. On the radio on Friday, he talked of the commnity making a decision

[Loz]

fazer71

Under 'bad' things about a CPZ, you missed:

- Bad for the permit holders inside the CPZ, as a smaller number of car places are provided, due to extra road markings

- Bad for all the streets around the CPZ, as people avoiding the annual fee migrate their cars to there.

- Bad for all the streets around the CPZ, as the local shop workers (known by Southwark council euphemistically as 'commuters' for effect) are now concentrated on a smaller number of streets.

... and under 'good' you missed:

- Good for Southwark council's bank account

[first mate]

I hr CPZ is the thin end of the wedge. It opens the door for CPZ to creep and expand.

[fazer71]

Loz Wrote:

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

> fazer71

>

> Under 'bad' things about a CPZ, you missed:

>

> - Bad for the permit holders inside the CPZ, as a

> smaller number of car places are provided, due to

> extra road markings

Only if Southwark are allowed to restrict the number of places we currently have.

> - Bad for all the streets around the CPZ, as

> people avoiding the annual fee migrate their cars

> to there.

That's their problem not ours ... Maybe they should get a cpz too.

> - Bad for all the streets around the CPZ, as the

> local shop workers (known by Southwark council

> euphemistically as 'commuters' for effect) are now

> concentrated on a smaller number of streets.

How do all the workers get to Harrods ??????? Why should we local care about shop workers being able to park ?

They would be entitled to parking permits... anyhow.

>

> ... and under 'good' you missed:

>

> - Good for Southwark council's bank account

Maybe but not by a huge ammount apparently .....

and anyway we'd get all that guaranteed parking and all the shops would get more customers from all the extra parking....

It's a no brainer.... as long as it's 1 hr CPZ

[fazer71]

first mate Wrote:

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

> I hr CPZ is the thin end of the wedge. It opens

> the door for CPZ to creep and expand.

That's not the experience in Herne Hill and other areas it keeps the commuters out ... beautifully...

[gsirett]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

> first mate Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I hr CPZ is the thin end of the wedge. It opens

> > the door for CPZ to creep and expand.

>

>

> That's not the experience in Herne Hill and other

> areas it keeps the commuters out ...

> beautifully...

Southwarks own figures for their scheme show a net reduction in parking spaces AFTER the commuters are removed. I (genuinely) am happy to be told if I'm missing something here, but how will that mean that people can park more easily?

My guess is that it will simply move "the problem" on to adjoining streets. The "CPZ light" option means that those adjoining streets will be within walking distance of ED station.

And, actually, yes that IS the epxereicne in Herne Hill.....their scheme has been extended twice I think and there was a consultation recently (last year??) about extending it up to North Dulwich.

[Mscrawthew]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

>

> and anyway we'd get all that guaranteed parking

> and all the shops would get more customers from

> all the extra parking....

>

>

> It's a no brainer.... as long as it's 1 hr CPZ

Wrong, You obviously have never lived inside a CPZ?

[Loz]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

> > - Bad for all the streets around the CPZ, as

> > people avoiding the annual fee migrate their cars to there.

> That's their problem not ours ... Maybe they should get a cpz too.

And that, folks, is in a nutshell all that is wrong with a CPZ. It just makes bigger problems elsewhere and sod the consequences.

[first mate]

See an example of CPZ creep at Ladywell http://brockleycentral.blogspot.com/2011/09/consultation-begins-on-further.html

[Y]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

> first mate Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I hr CPZ is the thin end of the wedge. It opens

> > the door for CPZ to creep and expand.

>

>

> That's not the experience in Herne Hill and other

> areas it keeps the commuters out ...

> beautifully...

What?s this about not happening in Herne Hill? Get yourself over in the Ruskin Park direction where the day after the introduction of the CPZ there (2009: 12-2pm restrictions) all the commuter traffic shifted over into Southwark, e.g. Red Post Hill and further towards Herne Hill Station on the Lambeth side. Lambeth call it ?displacement?. Additionally a notable amount of resident vehicles now park outside their controlled streets to avoid charges, which seems to be increasing as a function of the charge increases. Lambeth?s advice (2009): a consultation to extend the CPZ? It?s a long game on the part of the Councils?

[first mate]

Y, precisely- it is the long game and one hopes that as many people as possible turn up at the community council meeting to try to halt the proposed inception of the 'game'. CPZ was defeated in Bermondsey, it can be stopped in East Dulwich if enough people make their objections known at the Community Council.