E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[Siduhe]

I'm also grateful for James sharing the more detailed info - it has led to a much more informed discussion on both sides - there clearly is a parking issue on some streets although I'm personally not convinced the impact is going to be what residents expect given the loss of unregulated parking which will bring each street down to "100%" max parking spaces.

I did find this line of the report very interesting though, re Oglander:

However, Oglander Road has not been recommended for inclusion because it cannot be accessed (by car) from Grove Vale (which is the street that the project?s funding comes from in the TfL bid) due to the one-way working and that should it be included it would have also required Everthorpe Road and possibly Oxenford Street

The way I read this is that zone of the CPZ has been determined as much by the manner of available funding (i.e. from TfL relating to Grove Vale) as whether there is an actual parking problem in any particular street caused by commuters. I know that's a sign of the times and not unique to Southwark, but it does sit a bit uncomfortably with any suggestion this is all being driven by resident needs. If it was, all of Oglander would have been included in CPZ looking at the parking survey figures, surely?

I've also tracked down this bit of the minute from the Community Council at which the CPZ was discussed:

Members advised officers that they should consult those mostly affected by these changes (e.g. the Albrighton Community Centre) and others who would be displaced as a result of the proposed CPZ. In addition the consultation should include those that reside outside the CPZ zones so their views could be noted. The presenting officer agreed to do this.

James, any idea why Southwark Council then backed down from this commitment to consult outside the CPZ zone? Or have I misunderstood this minute?

[James Barber]

Hi Siduhe,

I'm afraid i don't know. Worth contacting the offers to ask how they've done this.

Hi kr988,

An officer report states that ?125 for a parking permit is one of the cheapest in London. but it's not zero.

If someone was to park in a pay and display space they could use their mobile to pay for 2 hour parking I guess but that would cost them ?5.40 for the 2 hours and they'd have to very accurately judge it to. That's over a ?100 a month.

Someone suggested 80% of homes have a car. The last figure I recall for Southwark was 56% and had declined by 2% since then but as someone else suggested 30,000+ new office jobs at London Bridge may lead to more commuter demand to park in the area.

Hi chener books,

I'm afraid I don't know the dimensions for car parking - I used. You should be able to find it in planning documents.

Hi mackenney,

As I said asked your questions of officers and hope they have ready answers for them but not sure they make a difference to the consultation. Either the residents on the proposed streets feel parking stress or not and whether they feel a CPZ is a solution if they do for them.

[gmackenney]

Hi mackenney,

As I said asked your questions of officers and hope they have ready answers for them but not sure they make a difference to the consultation. Either the residents on the proposed streets feel parking stress or not and whether they feel a CPZ is a solution if they do for them.

Irrespective of whether the evidence suggests that the CPZ will / won't help? I prefer objectivity over subjectivity. I accept that there is a parking problem in some of the streets included in the CPZ. What I'm having difficulty with is whether a CPZ is the answer to that problem. Without the data which says how many spaces will be available to park in if the CPZ is introduced, I fail to see how residents can make a well informed choice either in favour or against. A large chunk of the information is missing!

What is clear to me is that the CPZ will reduce the number of spaces available in these streets (irrespective of who uses them) and those people will elect to park in the surrounding streets necessitating the extension of the CPZ. What we don't know is how many spaces will be lost and how acute that effect will be. I strongly suspect that if this CPZ goes ahead it will by necessity have to merge with surrounding ones such as the one near Peckham Rye station. Why? because the stations aren't that far apart - certainly within 15 mins walk of each other.

Is this better than the situation we (as a community) have today? I guess the choice is either parking stress for the streets near the station, or parking stress (and clamping / towing stress) for all of the streets sucked into this CPZ.

[first mate]

That's the plan. Once they can get it in on one or two streets they know it'll put pressure on the surrounding areas and so by degrees, the CPZ will spread and spread and the council coffers will swell from the proceeds. It is crystal clear that James Barber is totally in favour of the CPZ, despite not having a handle on the detail, as gmckenney, john at Chener books and others have pointed out so clearly.

[gmackenney]

Hi gmckinney,

Clearly any reduction in parking pressure is a reduction and all streets would go below 100% but yes even with controlled parking some streets will still feel stressed - my hunch is 80% means people can park very close to their homes. So yes people wont necessarily be able to park as close to their front doors as they like.

Except Elsie which remains well above 100%. To the point above - unless we know how many spaces are lost we don't know whether this will help.

Taking the maximum occupancy and removing the 'visitors' for the 'under stress' streets leaves these streets which remain under stress after the introduction of the CPZ:

Derwent: 82%

East Dulwich Road: 93%

Elsie Road: 116%

Ondine Road: 86%

Zenoria Street: 90%

How many spaces will be removed from these streets? Using the maximum occupancy figures, at least this many will be lost (the amount the max occupancy is over 100)%:

Derwent: 3%

East Dulwich Road: 7%

Elsie Road: 34%

Ondine Road: 0%

Zenoria Street: 15%

I've not attempted to factor in the spaces which won't be available to residents. It would be helpful to have the actual numbers of spaces and cars in front of me to draw useful conclusions. Gut feel tells me that Elsie almost certainly will be worse off. Zenoria probably no better off.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

This is a naive question, but why wasn't a compass stuck on the map at ED Station and a circle drawn for the proposed CPZ? That would seem fairer than random roads being included/excluded.

[Moos]

I also live in the proposed CPZ area, a 6 minute walk from the station. The ?125 resident permit fee would I feel be a costly price for something that will make life less pleasant and easy, but it's the visitor passes that will really rack up for me: after the first book each visitor will cost something like ?6.

That said, I entirely disagree with the assertion that residents of the proposed CPZ should have priority over neighbours of the CPZ-why should their quality of life be put second, unless the idea is just to extend the zone out until it butts up against the Peckham Rye zone?

I also wonder how many parking spaces are taken up by staff of Goose Green and St. John's and St. Clements. That parking problem won't go away. Not sure the proponents of the zone are doing themselves any favours by suggesting local workers 'should just take public transport'. Why would that argument apply to them but not to you?

[Chener Books]

Individual Residents' Parking Bay metrics:

It seems that TfL has planning guidance of 5m-6m length for each individual bay. This guidance is not mandatory for Southwark Council. It would be helpful if someone could verify this.

Marked as individual bays a 100m of uninterrupted kerb provides 20 spaces at 5m and 16 spaces at 6m.

To give this an on the ground perspective here are the lengths of these Ford basic models:

Ka 3.620m

Fiesta 3.950m

Focus 4.358m

Galaxy 4.820m

It could be that Southwark do not intend to mark individual bays.

Either way, someone fixed a length from which the occupancy percentages are derived.

John K

[James Barber]

Hi Moos,

Visitor passes currently cost ?16 for the first book of ten and then ?36 for subsequent books of ten.

One of the proposals is for the parking controls to operate from 10-12 mon-fri. So most current visitors would arrive and leave outside those times and days and those that are with would cos either ?1.60 or ?3.60 prt visit if they parked in e area. Not sure where ?6 comes from.

I'm sorry if I've given any impression of bias. I'm really not clear what residents will decide they want. So far some streets having given me the impression they're in favour and others theyre not and if EDF is representative people outside the proposed streets are against.

But I do want the debate around facts not buried in irrelevant detail.

It is clear that where CPZ's have been implemented in Southwark residents find it easier to park.

The nearest CPZ to ED at Herne Hill has spread by one street in I believe 7 years. So I don't believe in a huge domino affect. I also don't believe the administration is conisidering this as some kind of Trojan horse to rollout CPZ's.

The decision is really about easier parking for residents and their visitors versus payments and enforcement.

So I look forward seeing the final officer report detailing what people have said they want and encourage everyone whatever their views to respond to the consultation.

[Chener Books]

I do not agree that the proposed number of resident parking spaces for each street is an irrelevant detail.

John K

[trizza]

I do find this all rather depressing. I don't live in the CPZ but I live in ED and believe its introduction will be the thin end of the wedge.

I suppose I shouldn't be suprised but I find it very suprising that it is left to people on this forum to seek to ascertain (on the basis of the council's own information) whether, in practical terms, there will be a relative increase or decrease in the amount of available parking for residents after any CPZ is introduced (taking into account the predicted reduction in commuters parking).

As many others have stated this issue is absolutely fundamental to assessing whether a CPZ should be introduced, but it seems the powers that be are dancing around it and are not willing (or able) to give a straight answer. Frankly, I think this is pretty poor and really reflects how biased I think this consultation is.

James - if you want to do one thing to assist the debate and inform people, can I suggest that you try and get a straight answer from the Council to this simple question:

"If a CPZ is introduced will there be more parking spaces available to resident permit holders in the impacted streets than there are allready available to them (taking into account the anticipated reduction in commuter parking)."

"If so, what percentage increase in the number of car parking spaces are forecast?"

If the answer to the above is that the Council honestly believe (on some rational basis) there will be a significant increase then I can see why someone in the proposed CPZ would be minded to vote for it. If, however, the Council can't answer the question or there is a decrease (or only a marginal increase), I think residents would be nuts to vote for it IMHO.

[peckhamboy]

Likewise, I am waiting for answers to the following questions:

1. how many resident only parking spaces will be available in the zone after implementation?

2. how many cars belong to households within the zone?

3. what is the cost to the council (I seem to recall an earlier comment that TfL were funding this?) of (a) implementing and (b) enforcing annually?

4. what is the forecast annual income from the zone?

I cannot see how an informed debate (or an informed consultation) can be had without answers to these and other questions that are being asked on here. The council's consultation question is effectively "do you want to be able to park more easily and closer to your home". Naturally the answer is likely to be yes. The proposed solution, however, does not appear to achieve this for anyone within the zone or outside the zone, but I suspect that the answers to questions 3 and 4 above may indicate why the council is pushing this. Again. Based on analysis of the "facts" provided by the council, I can't see why anyone would want this, but I suspect many will be taken in by the promises of a parking nirvana.

Given the proximity of Christmas, a comparison with the electoral behaviour of turkeys seems inevitable.

[mikeb]

The consultation pack is quite clearly biased in favour of a CPZ: there is a page detailing purported benefits of a CPZ and nothing on the obvious potential downsides. The briefing pack also makes clear that once a CPZ is introduced, it is often required to be extended (see last page "what if we don't have a problem parking in our street?").

The main causes behind parking problems are more flats from houses, more car ownership by residents and more >1 car households. The only way a CPZ can mitigate these is by reducing the number of cars that residents can park (and therefore give incentive not to buy one).

I cycle most places and for years didn't own a car. But once you get kids, frankly it's virtually a necessity...

[Widdy]

If existing cummuter parking is, say, 10-20% a day in surrounding streets, but the introduction of a CPZ will reduce the avaialble parking areas by, say, 20-30% (notwithstanding bays not available to residents such as pay and display etc) it's clearly vital to understand how much parking will be available to assess whether or not it's worth all the hassle.

Otherwise the CPZ wil be introduced and parking will still be an issue so then people will only be allowed 1 permit per household, which may not be so attractive to some households...

I live just outside the CPZ on Copleston Road (but still only a 5 min walk from the station), and we'll get concentrated pressure from residents just outside the zone wanting to avoid paying ?125, commuter parking, local businesses and all the visitors, workmen, cleaners etc visiting those within the zone..yet we weren't even consulted! That said, I'd still rather have all that pressure and have to park 3 streets away than the CPZ (when implemented) being extended!

It's absolutely disgraceful that funding is being used as an excuse not to consult those who will be most affected.

[gmackenney]

James - your bias is evident for all to see on here. At no point have you even engaged on the downsides of this CPZ. Everything you've said here is about how great it's going to be for the residents inside the CPZ, completely disregarding those who live immediately outside.

I find it a little rich that the data which you supplied is considered irrelevant when it presents a less favourable view of the CPZ, but had enough relevancy to form the basis of the consultation. I think the number of spaces lost to this CPZ is an absolutely vital component to present a balanced view. Unfortunately a number of people have probably already voted positively in the absence of this information.

If logic and reason are an irrelevance, then I'm afraid none of us have any hope of this being a balanced consultation. I just hope enough people against this CPZ will come out and say so, and that their voices will be heard.

[gmackenney]

I believe the Herne Hill CPZ has been subject to a consultation to extend it further this year: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/TransportStreets/HerneHillCPZExtensionStage2.htm

[a_m]

Widdy - I totally agree with you on the issue of funding. Of course times are tough and funding is very limited but the Council can't use that as a reason not to even notify those residents who would be directly affected by the proposed zone (but live just outside it) of these proposals, or seek their views.

Frankly, I think the issue of funding is more significant in this consultation than the Council would like us to believe. Why claim that it's all down to resident requests and parking data when, for example, the Council's own officer explicitly told me that the reason Oglander and Everthorpe hadn't been included in the proposed zone was due to the additional funding that would be involved? Oh yes and the so-called relevant fact that you can't drive in to Oglander from Grove Vale (as borne out by the quote Siduhe posted on page 7).

Let's just be logical for a moment - okay you can't drive into the road from Grove Vale, but that road happens to be a 5 minute walk to the station, and that is a shorter walk to the station than many of the roads in the proposed zone (e.g. East Dulwich, even Ondine). Shall we take a guess at what any reasonable commuter wanting to park near the station is going to do? Pay a premium to park in East Dulwich Road and then have a longer walk to the station, or park for free on Oglander to the detriment of all the residents who won't be able to park on their own road, or indeed anywhere else in the zone as they won't be able to get a CPZ resident's permit. How can this possibly be a rational, evidence-based consultation?

[James Barber]

Hi gmckenney,

I have engaged and highlighted potential negative consequences.

I have higlhighed front gardens beign built on. A risk of displacement. etc.

I wasn't aware of the HH Lambeth side as I'm a Southwark councillor not near the borough boundary. In Southwark the HH CPZ has had one extension to add Holmedene Avenue.

Clearly CPZ have negative conseuqneces. Clearly they have positive consequences.

The balance between them will vary depending on a residents lifestyle and current parking pressure impacts. Thier is no universal truth on this.

[Siduhe]

It's absolutely disgraceful that funding is being used as an excuse not to consult those who will be most affected.

And after a clear commitment was given to Camberwell Community Council that residents outside the CPZ would be consulted. At James' suggestion I have followed up with Southwark Council to find out what form of consultation is being done outside the CPZ - suspect the Council will say they have consulted outside the CPZ zone via the two public exhibitions in Grove Vale Library.

As I've said before, I am well outside the CPZ so am not expressing views on whether it should or shouldn't be implemented. But the process that Southwark is using to seemingly try and push this through without a proper debate (informed by all the relevant facts available from the surveys) just looks terrible. For everyone who feels strongly about this (one way or the other) can I mention there is a further community council meeting on 10 January 2012 where this is going to be discussed. They are normally at 7pm. So people do have an opportunity to make their views known in other ways and should do this as well as engaging with Southwark.

RESOLVED: That a further report be presented at Camberwell community council meeting on 10 January 2012, after which it would be taken as a IDM (individual decision making) report in February 2012 and, if approved, statutory consultation should take place in March 2012.

[gmackenney]

James - agreed that there are negative and positive consequences and that there isn't 1 right answer. What people are trying to get to is just how negative / positive those consequences are. If the CPZ will mean no additional free space in the zone then clearly that won't be a success. What we're trying to ascertain is how many free spaces there will be so people can make a call on whether they think this CPZ going to deliver the benefits it promises.

FYI, I also didn't know about the HH extension until I Googled it! Looking at that extension the area being covered looks pretty large.

Whilst I'm giving you a hard time about this, believe it or not, I do appreciate the (albeit slanted) engagement we are getting! It's great to get some of the data out in the open so people can make their own minds up.

[peterstorm1985]

I think JB's summation is fair as the actual outcome is uncertain. The critical factor will be how many residents choose not to pay and move their cars somewhere else. This hasn't been assessed to date. If sufficient residents are on low incomes ("residents lifestyle") such that they can't pay, and so simply move their cars to adjacent streets, the remainder, wealthier, residents should find that it works very well.

Social apartheid at its very best.

Of course, there will be some who initially choose not to pay but then later sign up (after a few weeks of wet weather perhaps). This could lead to an impression that the CPZ was a success but that car ownership had then increased. I'd love to see Southwark use that in their stats.

[garnwba]

I find it very amusing that a number of people on this thread are objecting to the introduction of the CPZ because they live near by and worry about the knock on effect are also disuputing that there is any issue with commuter parking....

Surely that is slighly contradictory?!?!!?

Unless of course they think that those in the CPZ zone will all park outside it to avoid paying.... in which case they will not agree to the CPZ, we will not get it and therefore you can all stop worrying.

Wino - I'm not sure what road you have been walking down in the morning but it can't have been Melbourne Grove - 3 spaces free everytime during commuter time - Sorry but that is utter rubbish or you work weekends?!

[Loz]

garnwba Wrote:

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

> I find it very amusing that a number of people on

> this thread are objecting to the introduction of

> the CPZ because they live near by and worry about

> the knock on effect are also disuputing that there

> is any issue with commuter parking....

>

> Surely that is slighly contradictory?!?!!?

Not at all. The knock on effect is threefold:

1) A small percentage of commuters spread over a number of streets is not a big problem. Push them out to a smaller number of the nearest streets adjacent to the zone will cause a bigger issue

2) Lowering the total number of generally available spaces will push resident parking onto adjacent streets. Elsie Road being a particular case in point.

3) Non-payers at the edge of the zone will opt to park in adjacent streets, rather than pay ?125. Ditto with their guests.

[Wino]

garnwba Wrote:

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

> I find it very amusing that a number of people on

> this thread are objecting to the introduction of

> the CPZ because they live near by and worry about

> the knock on effect are also disuputing that there

> is any issue with commuter parking....

>

> Surely that is slighly contradictory?!?!!?

>

> Unless of course they think that those in the CPZ

> zone will all park outside it to avoid paying....

> in which case they will not agree to the CPZ, we

> will not get it and therefore you can all stop

> worrying.

>

> Wino - I'm not sure what road you have been

> walking down in the morning but it can't have been

> Melbourne Grove - 3 spaces free everytime during

> commuter time - Sorry but that is utter rubbish or

> you work weekends?!

I think that the argument is that commuter parking is not the main issue, but it is more the fact that there are too few spaces for residents as it is, along with day visitors (including guests/service people for residents), shoppers, some commuters, misc. others. So all roads already share the burden to varying degrees. With a CPZ, this just pushes more overspill onto other streets in a wave effect, particularly as available spaces will be curtailed by the mechanics of the system implementation as others have already mentioned.

In answer to your question I work from home and throughout London so the times that I walked around the roads varied at the time. There is a thread out there somewhere so you can check the times. I can only report what I physically saw with my own eyes, believe it or not.

I am due to to use the station after lunch and if I have time I will have a look and report back what I see.

Out of interest garnwba, can I ask what vehicle(s) do you have and when do you use it(them) that generates issues for yourself? Would be useful maybe for us all to build up a picture of what the precise problems are, rather than the generalised 'I can never find a space' argument.

edited for typos

[kr988]

The problem is as already stated that in working hours on weekdays it is very difficult to find a space to park(i live on Derwent Grove and have a normal size hatchback). This effectively means if you move your car in the day between 9am and 4.30pm it is more likely that you will have to park on an alternative road.You are right in saying that there is a lot of resident cars due to a lot if flat and parking is always tight. However as far as I know we and our neighbours can always park at night and at the weekend. So I can only assume that commuter parking for the station and from people working nearby is putting pressure on the spaces available causing residents not to be able to park in the daytime.None of us ever expect to park outside our house the issue is not being able to park on our street.

At the risk of sounding 'emotional' this is a real stress when you have small children or heavy loads to carry . This may happen more than once in a day when you have to park on another road.

I do think that many of you on the forum are taking for granted being able to park on the street you live in.Also comments about residents who live near a station should not expect to park on their road is not useful.