E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[first mate]

Garnbwa,

I have lived in ED for many years and I have never ever been able to park outside my house on a consistent basis. Often I have to park right at the other end of my road or in the next street, occasionally it is further. But it has never been unmanageable.

I would far rather have that than a system over which we will have little control and where the parameters, regulations and fee structure all become an open-ended, moveable council feast and where, ultimately the parking situation is highly unlikely to improve. Even James has said on here that there is no guarantee, that even 1 hour CPZ will have "the desired affect".

[Penguin68]

No commuters

Residents not wishing to pay

Sorry - there has been very little evidence put forward that it is 'in transit' (using ED station) commuters that are the primary parking problem here - rather more that it is people communting into ED to work. These people will now be displaced into adjacent streets (or may choose to stop e.g. teaching our children - a real win there then).

There is again very little evidence that residents choose to give up their cars when CPZs are introduced, unless these are for miles and miles - if they don't want to pay they park in adjacent uncontrolled streets.

All this means is that (1) the net parking spaces in ED are reduced and (2) a small problem for some streets becomes a much larger one for others - my (CPZ-er) gain being very much your (adjacent street) pain.

Oh, and as the CPZ inexorably creeps wider and wider (and almost certainly has a number of 'zones' within it) as more and more people in desperation seek it for themselves (once the wedge is in) even the initial CPZ-ers will increasingly find they can't park anywhere close to their homes, unless they spend their time watching the streets and rushing out to move their cars when they can.

And the council revenue generators will be having a field day, fining and towing and reducing the quality of life no end. As they do.

[fazer71]

The CPZ will only work if

1. The same amount of parking is available

2. It?s a 1 hr CPZ

3. It covers ALL streets within a 3 or 4 min walk of the Station

If parking place numbers are reduced, through making bays which are smaller than pre bay curb side parking then it will fail.

If it?s not a 1hr CPZ then we will end up with a no go zone and the shops will die.

If it only covers a few streets then the commuter parking will fill the streets which aren?t in the CPZ. Commuters are lazy and unlikely to want to walk for more than 4 mins from their cars to the station.

If it?s done right it?ll work.

If those against force it to be a Fudge they will only make things worst for all of us?

[peckhamboy]

Penguin68 - exactly. Garnwba - what you seem to be saying is that at present, people outside the zone have little or no trouble parking, and some people inside the zone do have trouble parking. And that, as a result of bringing in a CPZ, "commuters" will stop parking there and so will residents who don't want to pay - all of whom will park just outside the zone. So you will be able to park outside your house and your neighbour will park outside mine.

The upshot is that one area (outside the CPZ) ends up with a parking problem that it didn't have before. Another area pays ?125 pa per car to shift their problem onto someone else. So we still have one area with a problem (to some extent), and an area with little or no problem, except that now one of those areas is paying for the privilege. So all that's changed is that you've paid the council to shift (and exacerbate) your problem. But you call the anti-CPZ campaigners selfish?

As others have pointed out, the result is that the next zone asks for a CPZ and pays ?125 each to force your neighbour to park further away. Except now he decides he doesn't want to park that far away so he pays up too. And parks outside your house. We're all paying now, but the problem is back to where it started - with you not being able to park by your front door. IF the area was swamped with commuters (from out of town) for the station, a CPZ would probably work - but would have to be much bigger than a couple of streets. The locations of the streets who were marginally in favour, and the anecdotal evidence, suggests that station commuters are not the most significant problem. That's not to deny they exist - we certainly have people parking on our road to use the station - but they are not the primary cause of any issues and we don't know where they are commuting from - it is perfectly feasible that within two CPZ expansions (eg to include the roads off Lordship Lane and the roads north from Grove Vale up towards Goose Green and Peckham Rye) they would be able to get up to their old tricks again.

The point is that a CPZ is a solution but nobody has demonstrated that it is a solution to the problems here. And unless that can be demonstrated (or at least a majority of people are persuaded that it has been demonstrated), the council should look at more creative and imaginative solutions - and actually figure out the causes rather than commissioning a 'finger in the air' survey that is seeking only to justify their preferred (and coincidentally lucrative) solution.

(Edited to avoid confusion)

[first mate]

fazer71

If one could believe that the sole motivation was to solve the problem on a couple of streets, then you might have a point. I don't think anyone really believes that is the primary or only motivation. As Gsirett says, he swent through the figures with the council officer and net parking will be less.

[fazer71]

first mate Wrote:

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

> net parking will be less.

How it that possible? It makes no sense. Unless they shorten the roads.

If the bays maintain the same curb side parking meter for meter then mathamatically it impossible for there to be less parking.

Can someone clarify this? As it makes no sense...

I wonder what the view would be if there was no ?125 pa fee?

At a guess 99% would want the 1 hr CPZ everywhere?

Is the major objection that it is a stealth tax?

[garnwba]

some fair adn valued points that i agree with:

This is deffo a money spinning opportunity both short and long term as the CPZ will i am sure grow (either through coucil stealth action or residents asking for it)

I am also sadly sure that the due to the size and strange design of the suggested CPZ that surrounding roads will be affected negatively (it should be wider)

However the reduction in numbers will be far greater than suggested because:

a) the commuter traffic is far higher than the council figures suggest (certainly on lower half of M Grove)

b) The people parking in the roads for schools etc will park elsewhere or seek alternative ways to get to work

c) I have no doubt that many people will not buy a permit

peckhambouy - you mention you have parking problems now but it is manageable - so i dearly hope if the CPZ is introduced it remains that way for you. If however it becomes unmanageable (our view in MB is exactly that) then i wonder if you too will seek a CPZ in your area?

[gmackenney]

Spaces will be lost a number of ways:

1. Junctions will have yellow lines where 'dangerous' parking was previously tolerated.

2. Some bays will not be exclusively for CPZers - e.g. shared use bays and loading bays etc.

3. Where 'advisory' markings exist in front of driveways, these will either have to be replaced with parking bays (losing the use of the off street parking space) or a yellow line (keeping the off street space but losing the 'reserved' space in front of the house).

[Huguenot]

Apart from those people wishing to use people's residential streets as their own carpark for convenience purposes, there are long term issues that should be considered.

Anything that reduces or restricts the use of cars in the urban environment should be heavily biased in favour of implementation.

The geopolitical, environmental, social and health impact of private cars has been relentlessly negative: breaking up our societies into quivering heaps of dislocated individuals choking on particulates whingeing about gangs and islamic fundamentalism.

As with many of the most disruptive and short-sighted strategies of our society, the campaign for car freedom is lead by right wing ageing males, willing to sacrifice others at the altar of their own self-indulgence simply because they'll never have to pay the price.

Were I to make it to that community meeting, I'd be having a close look at some of the 'protestors' and asking whether I honestly could share their motivations.

[Loz]

You been reading Guardian Online again, Hugo? :))

[peckhamboy]

garnwba - I didn't say we had parking problems now. We have no problems at all, despite a small number of train station commuters (a small price to pay for living so close to the station). If a CPZ comes in, and the parking becomes a problem, I would want the council to do something about it. My first choice would be to remove the CPZ that caused the issue. My second would be to investigate whether the issue is train commuters or displaced residents. If the problem is displaced residents, the solution is not necessarily to increase the CPZ. It might be to remove the CPZ. It might be to reduce the charge for residents permits. It might be to subsidise the charge for certain types of applicant (eg those on benefits).

Of course, as now, the council will only consider one option, so what I want will be irrelevant. I'll end up with a CPZ anyway and, depending on where they draw the boundary, will either pay or park elsewhere. But ultimately, it would simply increase the chances of deciding to move out of London.

One of the big attractions of ED for me was the lack of a CPZ. Having lived in one previously (where I didn't own a car but occasionally had use of one) it was an absolute nightmare. Some of which was administrative - such as having to obtain permits in person from an office only open 9-5 during the week, which might be eased by introducing more flexible ways of obtaining a residents permit. And some of which was enforcement - fines for not correctly displaying a permit because the reg number was written in pencil rather than black ink, for example, or because the scratch box was not completely scratched off even though the date underneath was entirely clear and legible.

[garnwba]

apologies peckhamboy - it was firstmate who mentioned current parking problems

FYI

The world of permit parking has moved on considerably since the days of scratch cards and having to buy in person. Compare it to how you renew your car tax now - via txt, online, in person so many options to choose from.

[gsirett]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> Apart from those people wishing to use people's

> residential streets as their own carpark for

> convenience purposes, there are long term issues

> that should be considered.

>

> Anything that reduces or restricts the use of cars

> in the urban environment should be heavily biased

> in favour of implementation.

>

> The geopolitical, environmental, social and health

> impact of private cars has been relentlessly

> negative: breaking up our societies into quivering

> heaps of dislocated individuals choking on

> particulates whingeing about gangs and islamic

> fundamentalism.

>

> As with many of the most disruptive and

> short-sighted strategies of our society, the

> campaign for car freedom is lead by right wing

> ageing males, willing to sacrifice others at the

> altar of their own self-indulgence simply because

> they'll never have to pay the price.

>

> Were I to make it to that community meeting, I'd

> be having a close look at some of the 'protestors'

> and asking whether I honestly could share their

> motivations.

Hugenot. Without any sarcasm, I agree (nearly 100%) with what you're saying (we've done it at last!)

The only bit i disagree with is that any of the CPZ propsals put forward by southwark for Grove Vale area will make a blind bit of difference to any of the issues you mention.

Oh, and BTW, I'd love to give you a lift to the CC meeting, but I'll be going on my bike

[first mate]

garnwba,

Only I never used the word 'problem' because I do not perceive not being able to park right outside my house every day as a problem. Sometimes it is a minor inconvenience but, as I said, manageable, and infintely preferable to your solution, for all the reasons stated already.

Please do not think that I do not sympathise with your plight- I do, but I am completely unconvinced that even 1 hour CPZ, in this case, is going to work or benefit ED long term. Moreover, the fact that James Barber said here that even 1 hour CPZ might not have the "desired affect" persuades me it is not the solution it is being projected as.

[gsirett]

YOU CAN HAVE A SAY:

Anybody wishing to get their views over to the community council can put forward a deputation. If accepted, these can be read put by the person at the meeting. You have to be representing a group of people (I think minimum of 6 is the benchmark). For example, I will be submitting one on behlaf of a number of residents of my/adjoining Roads.

It is too late for tonights meeting, but anybody wishing to do one for the Dulwich meeting (which is on 24th Jan, 7PM, St Barnabus church) needs to be submitted to [email protected]by this Friday (13th)

The detailed instructions are below.

They need to

In relation to your query concerning a deputation to the next meeting please could you formally write to me (via email) by Friday, 13 January 2012 requesting that you wish to present a deputation at the above community council. This information will be included in a report with the Dulwich CC Agenda which is being despatched next week Monday 16 January.

For information I have included the Council's procedure for deputations at community council meetings:

Please outline your reasons for the deputation and what appropriate action you would like the Council to take.

Procedure for deputations:

1. When considering whether to hear the deputation request, community council can decide to:

? Receive the deputation at this meeting or a future meeting; or

? That the deputation not be received; or

? Refer the deputation to the most appropriate committee/sub-committee.

2. A deputation shall consist of no more than six people, including its spokesperson. Only one member of the deputation shall be allowed to address the meeting

for no longer than 5 minutes. After this time members may ask questions of the deputation for up to 5 minutes. At the conclusion of the questions, the deputation

will be shown to the public gallery where they may listen to the remainder of the open section of the meeting.

After the deputation members may decide to note the deputation or pass a motion outlining what they think the Council should do.

If you have any further queries, please let me know.

[chelle35]

Not sure if this has already been mentioned but there will be a meeting on Tuesday 24 January 7.00pm

@ The Community Suite, St Barnabas Church, 40 Calton Ave, SE21 7DG to talk and express concerns etc over CPZ in Dulwich.

[Hare]

On the basis of the Agenda that has been published for the Camberwell Community Council tonight, there will be an agenda item called Public Question Time (Item 11, timed for 8.45) after the Deputations have been heard (Item 6, timed for 7.10) but immediately before the CPZ discussion (Item 12, timed for 8.55). It says "This is an apportunity for public questions addressed to the chair. Residents or persons working in the borough may ask questions on any matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties. Response may be supplied in writing following the meeting".

Here's the thing - there is a form on which to put your question and which must be handed in to an officer at the meeting, which implies that they don't take spoken questions from the floor. However, for anyone who wants to do it by the book, here's the form.............

[Hare]

There are a lot of empty seats here at the Camberwell Community Council meeting - difficult to know how it compares with other such meetings, but at least there are a dozen or so people I recognise from within or immediately around the proposed CPZ who have turned out. Not really what I'd call a show of strength.

Remind me, who was it who said something that amounts to "all that it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing"? May be a slightly extreme sentiment for these circumstances, but you get the idea.

[fredricketts]

I think that most of the support will be at the meeting of the 24th January 2011.

I know I will be there.

[dairymilkfiend]

I am totally depressed. My husband attended the council meeting tonight, and I have read the consultation report in detail. Despite the fact that 38% of daytime parking in my road is commuters (!), the majority of residents evidently don't want a CPZ. All I can assume is that these people don't move their cars between 9am and 2pm on a weekday, as if they did they would realise that some of us are suffering. All I can say is don't move to east dulwich or leave before you have kids/ develop mobility problems/want to do any shopping.

[gsirett]

I have just returned from the Camberwell Community council.

The council voted unanimously against the introduction of a CPZ (they voted for option 2: to make some, non CPZ, changes)

Both Peter John and another councillor made the point that it was the only democratic thing to do, given the results of the consultation and the overwhelming community opposistion to such a scheme. Well said.

Will the East Dulwich councillors have the same opinion on the 24th of February? Don?t rely on it, make sure you attend

[easytiger]

Hare, almost every seat was filled in the end or were you too busy messing about on your pad. Barrie sat in the crowd with his bodyguard?. The residents spoke and presented and were applauded. Leader of the council agreed no cpz option 2, minor changes to roads. The majority of councillors voted no cpz,option 2. Not over yet though as james is still on the scene. If you want a cpz on Derwent rd then do a consultation in that road and stop wasting money and resources on flawed consultations.

[buddug]

I was there too. It was packed. Peter John, the leader of the council, could hardly not go back on his word after his statement in writing that if the majority consulted were against the CPZ then there would be no CPZ was read out. Well done to everyone who spoke. If we hadn't been there in force, who knows how it would have gone. That's why the East Dulwich meeting on the 24th is so important. (I have to say it was a joy to witness councillor Barrie Hargrove's face when Peter John agreed to no CPZ - he looked livid, and his face turned a rather beautiful shade of red...)

[AdamTait]

I appreciate all the arguments made here, unfortunately I haven't had time to read them all so apologies if I repeat any points already made.

As a resident of a road within the potential cpz I'd like to make a few points.

The argument that people who would potentially be within the cpz would choose to not pay and instead park their cars in other people's roads is ridiculous. The very point here is that residents within the proposed cpz are so fed up of not being able to park in their own roads and instead are having to park in roads a fair walk away from their homes is the reason they are now willing to pay to be able to park on their own streets. If they were going to park in roads other than their own to avoid paying, there would be no request for the cpz. The parking near the station has been an issue for so long that the residents are no willing to pay, if that's what it takes.

There was a remark made that the parking problem is not from commuters using the station, but is rather people parking here to work in ED. I have lived on Derwent Grove for over 20 years, and can tell you that the parking issue far predates the arrival of mass commerce in ED. Long before there were businesses in the area that people would be commuting to work at, there was an issue of parking by the station. Additionally, it strikes me as odd that if the parking spaces are being filled by people commuting to work in ED, they should choose to park largely in the street around the station. Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the ED businesses to provide parking spaces for their employees, and coordinate with the council to arrange this?

There also seems to be some misinformation about the proposal being spread around Lordship Lane, leading to businesses putting up posters opposing the cpz based on unfounded concerns. A brief conversation with a shop owner on lordship lane, who had an anti-cpz poster in their window, revealed that they were opposed because they didn't want parking changes made to Northcross Road (where the business is based) and the installation of parking meters. Neither of these things are proposed in the cpz. Once the actual proposal was explained to the owner they said they were in fact in fair of the proposal. I wonder who is responsible for this misinformation, presumably the shop owner did not simply guess at the details of the proposed cpz. Perhaps it would be pertinent for someone within the council to distribute a simple and clear explanation of what is actually proposed. It would be a shame if the final decision was influenced by people campaigning against something that was different to what is in fact proposed.

It seems that there is an opinion going around that this cpz is some sly plan by the council to bleed money out of people. This is simply not the case, it is the last ditch attempt by residents who have been here a long time and have tried time and again to solve the problem of parking on their streets. It has now got to the point where the y are willing to pay to be able to park near their homes. Shouldn't the first step in this process be to ask the residents of the effected street ONLY if they would be willing to pay for parking permits, or if they would rather continue to put up with having to pass several street away from their homes? I know for a fact that the residents of the effected streets would happily accept the majority vote, and if the majority of effected residents would rather continue to have to park a distance away than pay for a permit, then the discussion would need to go no further. If they would rather pay for the permit, then perhaps it would be time to consider the effects on the wider community.

Finally, I have a slightly more personal remark to make (and as a personal point, feel free to ignore it, but I feel obliged to express it). I feel the way people in this area are going about this issue is typical of what East Dulwich has become, and it saddens me. It really seems that the sentiment is "we know there is a problem for the people living near the station, but it's not my problem and I want to keep it that way. Let's keep it your problem." What a disgraceful way for a community to comport itself. In fact, it means we are not a community at all, but rather a collection of individuals only looking out for themselves, who just happen to live near each other. Perhaps 15 years ago the area didn't have the gloss it has now, perhaps it was slightly rougher, but at least it felt like a community. At least it felt that the members of that community cared about each others problems, or at the very least empathized with each others complaints. In what way is it fair that people who have lived here for 30 years, elderly people and families should have to walk three blocks to and from their cars because they are never able to park on their roads? Shouldn't a community be trying to solve the communities problems together, for everyone, rather than just ensuring that one part of this community shoulders the problem consistently? If the concern is that the cpz would move the parking problem (whether it's caused by commuters using the station of people working in East Dulwich) to another area (by the way, this seems odd as the cpz would allow residents within the zone to park in their own road rather than using the spaces in other people's roads...) then why aren't we pressing the council to provide a station car park, or why aren't businesses pressing the council to provide their employees with parking spaces? It really is sad to see how little people in this area care about the problems faced by other members of this community.

Perhaps I'm in a minority, but I really didn't want this area to turn in to another Dulwich Village, but is apparently what's happening. The classy boutiques and expensive eateries might make ED more up market and desirable, but it really seems that people who live here now just do not care about any one else, and yet will still expect help once they have a problem.

I'm sure there are those that will have a sharp response for me, so have at it, but I've been here a long time and I've watched it change, for better and (shamefully) worse.

Sorry to go on a bit, but it's been on my mind for some time.

[Carrie]

Adam

It really is not ridiculous to suggest that people within a cpz would choose not to pay. The figures for Derwent Grove show that there are 82 properties which were consulted. Only 31 forms were returned - a response rate of only 38%. Of those returned 19 were in favour of the CPZ and 12 were against. That means that only 23% of the residents of Derwent Grove are in favour of a CPZ - the rest (77%) are either against is or could not be bothered to respond. It is not ridiculous to suppose that some of those who voted against or did not respond are not willing to pay ?125 for the privilege of parking on the road on which their propery is located and would rather park on a neighbouring road for free!