E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[Y]

I heard there is a street in Herne Hill on the periphery of a CPZ : 28 residences, with no off-street parking - 3 permits issued. Guess where all the other cars park?

[peckhamboy]

And across Southwark, the take-up of permits is low on average. James Barber gave the figure some time ago - from memory, around 40%. Given that car ownership is around 50% (60% in ED), that leaves a lot of people who are not paying (and therefore must be increasing parking congestion on neighbouring roads). So it's not unreasonable to assume similar issues here.

Adam, I don't think there is a lack of empathy here. It is more that another way of looking at it is that those who want a CPZ are effectively saying that they are prepared to pay to have their problems pushed onto someone else. Not particularly community minded either. A CPZ can not be said to address the causes, because nobody has investigated the causes. If train station parking was a big issue, I would expect the streets to be significantly more congested, and to be relatively free at weekends. I have never seen more than two or three spaces on Derwent Grove at any time of day or night, including weekends, which suggests the congestion is somewhat more permanent (ie resident demand exacerbated by some station or shop parking). Frankly, the train service from ED is hardly going to be drawing in the crowds from miles around. The other side of Grove Vale you can park within reasonable walking distance from Peckham Rye and get a significantly better choice of services instead.

[Hare]

easytiger Wrote:

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

> Hare, almost every seat was filled in the end or

> were you too busy messing about on your pad. [....]

> If you want a cpz on

> Derwent rd then do a consultation in that

> road and stop wasting money and resources on

> flawed consultations.

Goodness me, did someone run along the railings with a stick and rattle the tiger's cage? Sorry to disappoint, dear heart, but I think you've confused me with someone who has an iPad or lives on Derwent Grove. Innocent on both counts.

But no matter, for as you say, more seats were filled later in the meeting - sadly, some by folk who had timed their arrival based on the information on the Agenda which indicated that the CPZ item would be taken at 8.55 when, in fact, it was brought forward at the discretion of the Chair.

Packed would, I think, be a slightly overheated description of attendance since there remained vacant seats over in the section furthest away from the door, which is where I was seated. Still, one thing we have seen is that it's not the number of bodies in the room but the coherence and unity of voice that will be important on 24th Jan., either way.

[Loz]

peckhamboy Wrote:

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

> Adam, I don't think there is a lack of empathy here. It is more that another way of looking at it

> is that those who want a CPZ are effectively saying that they are prepared to pay to have their

> problems pushed onto someone else. Not particularly community minded either.

Exactly what I was thinking, peckhamboy, and pretty much the sentiment expressed by fazer71 yesterday.

[buddug]

Hare wrote: ..."more seats were filled later in the meeting - sadly, some by folk who had timed their arrival based on the information on the Agenda which indicated that the CPZ item would be taken at 8.55 when, in fact, it was brought forward at the discretion of the Chair. Packed would, I think, be a slightly overheated description of attendance since there remained vacant seats over in the section furthest away from the door, which is where I was seated."

Not true. The anti-CPZ contingent, including me, were there from 7pm onwards. It was packed. Almost every seat was taken in the whole hall.

[fazer71]

Carrie Wrote:

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

> Adam

>

> - the rest (77%) are either against is or could

> not be bothered to respond.

Carrie what kind of logic is that ?. Biased logic.

You can make no assumtions from those figures that the (77%) were Against.

For all we know thay could well be For.

Maybe remove / edit your post ?

[fazer71]

Sorry no that is not quite my sentiment.

My view is that well implemented CPZ will get rid of commuter parking and clear many unused cars from the CPZ area.

As for the impact on other streets there is never going to be a way of stopping that but if the CPZ is large there will be less of an impact because both locals and commuters will not want to walk great distances.

The fringes of the CPZ zone will always suffer that?s one of the few downsides but the further the fringe is away from the heart of the problem area the lower the impact.

I?m 100% behind AdamTait the current system does not work for the residents.

The misinformation which is being spread is just a disgrace.

The current system does not work!

Objectors bleat on and on about being against it but have no alternative!

Unless objectors can think up a better system please STOP objecting to something which (if correctly implemented) is going to be better for the great majority of locals.

[first mate]

Gsirett,

Good news last night, but I imagine ED councillors may be more favourably inclined to CPZ. I will be attending the Dulwich CC meeting on 24th and I hope other against CPZ will too.

[first mate]

fazer71,

I'm sorry, but for the majority of ED residents the current system does work. That is why the majority have said no to CPZ. The notion that parking is a problem is in part one of perception. Many of us do not mind having to walk a couple of minutes to the car. Those who are disabled are allocated a space.

[fazer71]

The misinformation which is being spread is just a disgrace.

[gsirett]

fazer71 Wrote:

> My view is that well implemented CPZ will get rid

> of commuter parking and clear many unused cars

> from the CPZ area.

Don't disagree but none of the proposals put forward by Southwark ARE well implmented. As I've said from the beginning, their design is fundamentally flawed. As for the 1 Road CPZ, even their own officers admit that this is not likely to work.

Fazer, I guess you live on Derwent? - come and try parking on Glengarry. It's no better. Or try Thorncome. Or Ashbourne Grove. Or the other end of Melbourne. These are Roads that (guess) don't currently suffer "commuter problems". It's just theres a lot of people in the area with cars. These are all Roads OUTSIDE the proposed CPZ which are easy walking distance from the station that will have to soak any commuters not using Derwent.

BTW: Southwark sell up to 130% ratio of permits to spaces. Oh, and there will be a net drop of 150 spaces (their own figures) after the commuters leave

Fazer, please tell me how this is going to make your life better?

[fazer71]

gsirett

The figures quoted make no sense. Incompenent Southwark. You should be fighting against the poor details NOT the whole CPZ. You are fighting the wrong fight.

The CPZ will make life better for ME and ALL the residents within the CPZ see the quality of life in CPZ Chelsea Fulham Herne Hill etc etc etc

The misinformation which is being spread is just a disgrace.

[gsirett]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

> gsirett

>

> The figures quoted make no sense. Incompenent

> Southwark. You should be fighting against the poor

> details NOT the whole CPZ. You are fighting the

> wrong fight.

>

> The CPZ will make life better for ME and ALL the

> residents within the CPZ see the quality of life

> in CPZ Chelsea Fulham Herne Hill etc etc etc

>

> The misinformation which is being spread is just a

> disgrace.

Fazer. All of the figures I've quoted are either publically avaiable from Southwark or in their own consultation documentation. The "net drop of 150 spaces" is a figure that I worked out WITH a counil officer, based on their own surevey data

I agree. It doesn't make sense.

So instead of bleating on about how you "know" it will make everybodys life better, why don't you have a detailed look at their proposals (as I have) and tell me how it will make your life better.

Edited to say: and also I HAVE lived in a CPZ. Overall, I'd say a reduction in quality of life.Still couldn't park outside my house (often next street) , people got towed, got tickets, the plumber cost more and the whole thing cost me ?100/year

[first mate]

fazer71,

I don't know if the last comment about misinformation was being directed at me- if so, it is rather out of order and unsubstantiated.

You espouse CPZ that is properly implemented but a cursory glance at the current design will show that it is badly designed. Proper implementation of a system built on a bad design is a non starter in my book.

You also state that "the fringes of the CPZ will always suffer" in what way is that essentially different from saying that those that live near a station will always have more of a problem? I do not see the displacement is a real solution, it just moves the problem on to someone else.

Finally, yes Southwark have, in my view, shown a degree of incompetence- why then give them another system to abuse?

[Chener Books]

I remain puzzled that some residents of Derwent Grove are in favour of the proposed CPZ.

I can see no rational explanation for this.

I wonder whether a partial explanation might be that some were early "voters" who replied to the consultation before the metrics were flushed out and published on the EDF.

John K

[Loz]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

> The CPZ will make life better for ME and ALL the residents within the CPZ

... and sod the rest. Yes, we know your attitude on that one.

Look, I'm all for a system that will sort out parking in ED, but this isn't it. It reeks of 'something must be done - this is something, it MUST be done' sort of thing. If train users are an issue, why have the two closest streets to the station, Melbourne Grove and St Francis Place, rejected the proposal? If train users are the issue, why are people complaining about weekend parking?

You've seen the numbers - they do not add up. So just saying, 'but what about ME!' is not a good argument.

> The misinformation which is being spread is just a disgrace.

What misinformation? You mean the flawed consultation document? The dodgy definition of 'commuters'? The idea that a CPZ will solve parking issues across ED? I fully agree.

[peckhamboy]

The majority of residents you claim to speak for seem to disagree with you. And you are ignoring the fact that you will be making life worse for those just outside the zone or those who would be included in your proposed larger zone (because the situation would be unchanged for them but they would be ?125 worse off). Maybe ?125 isn't much to you but for many of us that is money we would rather have in our pockets.

And if you bother to read the thread before posting, you will see that a number of people have put forward ideas about why there are (limited) problems in very isolated parts of the area, and what could be done to try to address it. Fundamentally, however, the underlying problem is that in some roads the ratio of residents cars to spaces is around 1:1 menaing that the road is permanently oversubscribed. It only takes a couple of so-called "commuters" to disturb the equilibrium. And by "commuters" I mean: local shopkeepers, tradesmen, skips, residents' friends and family, people parking selfishly and blocking two spaces, people putting bins out. So you find that 2 or 3 people parking near the station from further out has a disproportionate effect on your own ability to park in your road - and seek to counter this by campaigning for controlled parking across around 1200 houses, at ?125. Which is a rather disproportionate response.

fazer71 Wrote:

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

> gsirett

>

> The figures quoted make no sense. Incompenent

> Southwark. You should be fighting against the poor

> details NOT the whole CPZ. You are fighting the

> wrong fight.

>

> The CPZ will make life better for ME and ALL the

> residents within the CPZ see the quality of life

> in CPZ Chelsea Fulham Herne Hill etc etc etc

>

> The misinformation which is being spread is just a

> disgrace.

[Loz]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

> Carrie Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Adam

> >

> > - the rest (77%) are either against is or could

> > not be bothered to respond.

>

> Carrie what kind of logic is that ?. Biased logic.

> You can make no assumtions from those figures that the (77%) were Against.

> For all we know thay could well be For.

>

> Maybe remove / edit your post ?

Carrie made so such assumption. '(77%) are either against is or could not be bothered to respond' is a correct reading. You misquoted.

So maybe remove / edit your post, fazer71? We wouldn't want misinformation being spread, would we?

[BrandNewGuy]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

> The current system does not work!

>

> Objectors bleat on and on about being against it

> but have no alternative!

>

> Unless objectors can think up a better system

> please STOP objecting to something which (if

> correctly implemented) is going to be better for

> the great majority of locals.

At the risk of boring everyone to tears, I'll repeat the question I asked James Barber (twice) and garnwba - 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 weigh 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.

[fazer71]

first mate nothing directed a you or any individual.

This is..

Reinventing the wheel treading a road which has been trod by many thousands before.

Isn?t it about time this CPZ nonsense was given a LAW which stopped the local authority from milking it and stopped there being flawed CPZ systems? Time for an M25 blueprint until then it's going to be a nonsense.

With us all wasting our time with phoney consultations and botched figures consultations.

Time for a practical solution look at Tokyo we'll end up that way is it so bad?

This is a prime example of what is wrong with local democracy people don?t always know what's best for them or they are selfishly biased put thier heads in the sand or are just not clever enough to grasp the issue.

I must be thick too because I can't see an alternative.

[Penguin68]

At one time the only 'cure' for a very real problem (syphilis) was dosing with highly toxic mercury. The alternative (do nothing) was actually better for the patient than the 'cure'.

Actually, CPZs can genuinely alleviate some types of parking problem (I have listed above what I believe to be the 3 necessary conditions for it to work) - but in our case the most likely cause is a high and increasing ratio of car ownership in the streets concerned together with an influx of 'working in ED' commuters - it is an area with two schools for instance and some small businesses (this isn't just about Lordship Lane shopworkers). If you then reduce the spaces available (the council's own figures say this will happen) for 24 hour resident parking a problem will simply be exacerbated (indeed very possibly not just tipped into adjacent streets, but exacerbated for those living in any CPZ-ed street).

So, fazer71, not seeing an alternative (apart from 'do nothing' - which you must be able to see, but can't believe is an alternative) doesn't mean that if there is only one other option you must take it. Or can I offer you a syringe full of mercury for your troubles?

[first mate]

fazer71,

No you are right, long-term there is something for us all to consider, but we need to see imaginative, fresh and well designed proposals, that clearly have the common and greater good at their core.

The issue here is short-term, misplaced thinking on the part of the council, where they want to try to foist a leaky sticking plaster onto the current situation, which, by their own admission may not achieve the "desired affect". A 'solution' which may also become a revenue raising tool in future. They have also played fast and loose with the figures and definitions to try to achieve that aim. Why would we trust the proposals?

[James Barber]

Hi BraandNewGuy,

Apologies I really had thought I'd responded.

Of course any solution for some will be better than any of the other proposed recommendations.

Recommendation 1 - do nothing - is clearly a rubbish option if you passionately want something done about parknig on your road.

No.2 - is rubbish if you regularly park on corners and couldn't care less about the impact that has on others.

No.3 - Melbourne Grove - if you don't care about parknig pressures perhaps don't have a car then this is a rubbish option to you.

No.4 - if you live outside the proposed streets this is a rubbish option for you as you may well prefer the problem to stay where it is.

Etc. It's all down to perspective.

Is Southwark Council going to provide a station car park. Clearly not, because apart from not having the large capital to buy land for this and I doubt the building merchant wants ot sell, why would people pay to park at a station car park when it's free on local residents streets.

Should Southwark Council provide car parking to businesses. Well it effectively already does - on residential streets!

But weirdly shop owners park as close to their shop as possible rather than thinking perhaps that makes life harder for potential customers. Hence the reason we have such high levels of criminality of parking plates vanishing around East Dulwich.

Hi grisett,

My understanding of the loss of parking you talk about is the current parking controls timings. The difference between when single yellow lines operate and when they don't. You're comparing when yellow lines don't operate and stating that's the available parking now and when they do operate now or under any controlled parking which is clearly less.

I'm sure it's a genuine mistake but it is misleading.

[Penguin68]

Recommendation 1 - do nothing - is clearly a rubbish option if you passionately want something done about parknig on your road.

James - this is only a rubbish option if you can absolutely demonstrate that a CPZ will, both in the short and reasonably (2-3 years) long term absolutely alleviate your current parking problem. People who have lived in some CPZs (I am one of them) do not have that experience - indeed many posts here from experienced CPZ-ers have suggested that their lives were made worse, not better, by CPZ implementation. So - your statement about recommendation 1 actually begs a number of questions. I know it is an article of faith with you that a CPZ is always and inevitably good for someone residing in a CPZ zone, but you may (indeed from posts here do) find those who have CPZ experience not uniformly agreeing with you - and yes, as I have also said, on some occasions, CPZs do work. But not always, and from what I have seen of the description of the causes of the problem in ED, not in this case.

[easytiger]

Fazer, to answer your question i think you are being thick, with respect. The councillors voted for option2, which is no cpz but makes changes to roads and improvements. One chap asked Paul Gellard in the question time where the residents who voted for cpz live on Derwent road, he answered that they mostly live close to the main rd Grove Vale. The improvements they have made already on GV are good, i think.

@hare, thanks for rattling my cage :))