Proposed East Dulwich CPZ

[alex_b]

I?m also unconvinced that raised tables will make things much safer. In my experience they massively increase road noise (especially from large vehicles) and simply lead to hard acceleration and sudden breaking between the obstacles. Unfortunately this seems to be Southwark?s only approach to resolving traffic issues.

[intexasatthe moment]

Haven't raised tables been tried in the past on Barry Rd and then removed ? Perhaps old style raised tables caused problems with buses but newer styles of both would overcome these ?

Anyone know the history ?

Anyone understand the rationale for running the boundary of the possible CPZ down the middle of Barry Rd and excluding one side ?

Apologies if this expained on docs already linked to ,I didn't find them the easiest to view on line .

[TheArtfulDogger]

In response to intexas

Yes that's correct, a speed table was introduced, broke a number of the old route master bus chassis so they stopped running along Barry road until it was removed

A lot of wasted money, time and residential inconvenience by Southwark there

Alex , I agree, with the size of vehicles along Barry road including two main bus routes, the noise and vibration will be something to consider

[Abe_froeman]

I thought the southwark spine was going to run down crystal palace road? Can they actually run it down barry road with all the buses there?

[rendelharris]

Wouldn't an average speed camera be the best solution? Cost (as I understand) about ?100,000, but speed tables cost ?20,000 each.

[treehugger]

When you fill in the survey, there is nowhere to add an opinion on the proposed CPZ that seems to have been snuck in. Losing 45 parking spaces and having to accommodate the overspill from the CPZ will have a very signficant impact on Barry road residents. At the moment there are no major issues with parking. Certainly not at the north end of the road.

I agree that properly working speed cameras (even just the smiley face ones) would surely reduce the speeding at a far smaller cost and disruption of putting in speed humps.

[Penguin68]

You're just not getting it, are you? The only remedy that Southwark will offer for any road problem will involve the reduction of car parking spaces. The ruling party is on record, indeed it formed I think part of their manifesto, as wishing to reduce private car ownership in the borough - removing car parking spaces is a route to that, as is pricing out car ownership via CPZs. Other suggestions made by residents on this forum do not involve the reduction of private car space in the borough, so are not acceptable to the council. The fact that less parking will tend to increase car speeds (humps notwithstanding) is irrelevant to the great cause, to make us fully reliant on the public transport we don't happen to have at this end of the borough (or to force pensioners and the disabled to take-up biking - which should at least end up freeing up housing in the borough).

If the answer is not reducing parking space, then the question was wrong in the first place.

[rendelharris]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> The ruling party is on record, indeed it

> formed I think part of their manifesto, as wishing

> to reduce private car ownership in the borough

Can you provide any evidence for that statement? It's certainly not in Southwark Labour's current manifesto, there is simply a statement that they want to reduce car use by encouraging walking, public transport and cycling and improving facilities for same. I know many believe (including you, it seems) that the council are waging a secret war on motorists, but you are always rigorous in insisting on high standards of evidence from others; citation please.

[Penguin68]

I would think that the corollary of 'reducing car use' is to reduce car ownership. And 'improving public transport' is hardly the watchword in our neck of the woods, with TFL reducing bus frequencies, for instance.

[rendelharris]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> I would think that the corollary of 'reducing car

> use' is to reduce car ownership. And 'improving

> public transport' is hardly the watchword in our

> neck of the woods, with TFL reducing bus

> frequencies, for instance.

That's predictable - and nonsense. Encouraging people to use their cars less - for example not to drive a mile to the shops - is not in any way the same as encouraging/forcing them not to have a car. You've stated that "The ruling party is on record, indeed it formed I think part of their manifesto, as wishing to reduce private car ownership in the borough"; clearly you cannot produce evidence of that "record" and so are reduced to semantic quibbling. You should either produce evidence of your assertion or withdraw it.

[rollflick]

The big issue here is that Southwark Council consulted on its draft Kerbside Strategy 18 months ago, which proposes radical new parking policies, but appears not to have made public any decision to finalise it or not. I honestly can't see how it could carry out a lawful consultation on major new CPZs without making clear what its parking policy now is. Otherwise how could the public comment in an informed way? A decision was due before the May elections but there seems to be no trace of what was decided. Maybe one of the councillors could comment?

Kerbside Strategy: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/kerbside-strategy/

Decision due Feb 2018: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50015767&Opt=0

Besides lots of useful facts and figures that cover many of the issues raised in this thread, the strategy states 'we currently allocate kerbside space based on a 1950s model. Despite 60 per cent of Southwark households not owning a vehicle and walking being the largest mode share, parking for private vehicles still dominates kerbside space.' It then proposes a policy to prioritise kerbside space for walking and cycling.

The reality is that with new housing being built with low or zero car parking (especially high rise), the proportion of Southwark homes owning cars will decrease. But there will still be more parking so absolute number of cars owned is likely to increase, putting more pressure on borough roads, unless car ownership is reduced in some places such as by introducing CPZs. Given the council's legal duties to reduce pollution, obesity etc. and also policy in the Londonwide Mayor's Transport Strategy, doing nothing is not an option. But, as this thread shows, doing anything will be controversial.

That said whatever your views Southwark seems to be making a right mess of this, first by not providing an update on the fate of the Kerbside Strategy within a reasonable period, then revealing a half a map of a proposed East Dulwich CPZ in another consultation. No wonder a lot of people are confused and unhappy.

[mrwb]

Doing nothing is definitely an option. This country is run by cretins. Both in Westminster, City Hall and in Southwark town hall. There are no issues with parking in the area, so do nothing. It's very simple.

What we've got is a bunch of beaurocrats trying to justify there 6 figure salaries and make sure the ordinary residents pay for it / them.

It's a disgrace. London was better without a Mayor. Everything in the city has got worse since the early 90s. I'm certain the population will start declining again. Just as it did in the 4 decades after the war. Parking will get easier over the next decade not harder.

[intexasatthe moment]

I'm a big fan of doing nothing .

Might even be a good idea in this instance .

Fewer people spurred on to install dropped kerbs through fear of CPZ ,no reduction in parking spaces and less driving hunting for one . No installing new road markings ,official notifications .....

[mrwb]

These people need to be paid to somehow and to do something I guess?:

https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/southwark-council-answers-claims-spent-officer-salaries-uk-authority/

Very much hoping that once Momentum are done with the Tories they turn there attention to the how their own Labour councils are being run.

Southwark is one of the poorest boroughs in London. Yet it seems to me the council basically exists to enrich its fatcat executives at the expense of the residents. That is despite the borough having a poverty rate of 31% and 20.5% of the workers being classed as low paid. Quite a few other boroughs are run in a similar manner.

https://www.trustforlondon.org.uk/data/boroughs/southwark-poverty-and-inequality-indicators/

[MarkT]

Extracts from the 2012 Grove Vale Consultation Report:

?The Parking and Enforcement Plan1 (PEP) sets out the council?s policy in the management of parking on its public highway.?

?The PEP sets out that the council will give significant weight to the consultation return when it exceeds a 20% threshold.?

The response rate to the questionnaires was 21% with additional comments by email, letter or phone, which represented a similar mix of opinion.

?Q5) Do you agree with the proposed introduction of a controlled parking zone in your street??

Response: Yes 35% No 59% Undecided 6%

The report cites an earlier consultation in 2001-3 with 244 responses, a 13.6% response rate with 54% were against the implementation of a CPZ, but does not give the percentage undecided and the percentage for the CPZ.

In the meantime they had received 44 requests from residents in the study area for a CPZ.

Those subsequent requests were not necessarily the same individuals who had responded first time, but, numerically, pressure from a minority of the minority that had lost the argument first time round was used by the council to justify a second go. The second consultation showed an increased response and an increased percentage opposed to a CPZ.

The Report acknowledges that, while they delivered questionnaires to every address, the response was unrepresentative in that ?Only 10% of respondents in the study area don?t have a vehicle.?

I suspect it was even less than 10% if you include those that drive but do not ?have a vehicle? The Report includes a table and bar chart showing times of day when ?You? or ?Your visitors? have difficulty parking. The overall numbers recorded are notably higher for ?You? than for ?Your visitors?. Any non-drivers who had responded, would, I suggest, record no personal difficulties but might still identify difficulties for their visitors.

So in the Grove Vale area, close to the rail station, with all the issues of commuter parking, the Report shows that resident drivers were increasingly opposed to a CPZ. Also that non-drivers opted out.

All residents are affected by this. It is not just blue badge holders who need to drive. It is not just drivers who have visitors who may need to drive. It is not just drivers who may need a boiler engineer on a cold winter day.

We can?t leave this to a small minority of wanty drivers.

[Jacqui5254]

Thank you MarkT.

Perfectly put.

[geh]

I'm really concerned about this, apart from this thread on EDF there has been no communication of any consultation. I'm in Bassano St, so in the middle (so I have learnt) of the proposed area?

[Mscrawthew]

Mark T, Thank you!

[EDAus]

We live on Ashbourne Grove and our driveway is constantly blocked by people parking across it. We don't want a CPZ but are fed up with the current situation.

The lack of a clear consistent dropped curve strategy is a problem - our road is a typical example - some driveways are small and limited by humps and trees, some only have a space for small vehicles but large vehicles regularly park in them, others are full length of the properties and thus create no spaces between the houses for off street parking, one house has a joint driveway but I have seen cars park so close on either side the owners cannot get out.

Plus the council properties / housing association trusts tend not to have / allow off street parking for some reason. We have been told of one council property which has 4 vehicles. We have also been warned not to park in certain places as nails appear in tyres or worse, certain people mark certain spots as their own.

[betternowthanthen]

I have a feeling those 'Proposed Quietway' routes will only be new one way systems that are very much opposed on champion hill, leading to inconvenient access for residence and visitors ect, and increase traffic on other routes!

Southwark Council are terrible with the raised tables all over the borough, slowing down ambulances down ect, bumpy rides on the bus, bad for fragile loads, increasing pollution to slow and speed up again, they need to really think again, if not put them back as they were (in certain cases) they owe us back so much money with 'slowing everything down' and 'narrowing the roads' making it more unsafer for cyclists i think.

[MarkT]

I think if you do not want a CPZ it would be unwise to wait for the launch of Consultation. The wanty drivers clearly do not wait. The various consultation reports on specific CPZs make the point that outside of formal consultations the Council receives requests for a CPZ. They do not mention if they receive unprompted objections to a CPZ.

Sept 28th on this thread, I quoted from the Grove Vale Report, and now here from the Dog Kennel Hill Report. The pattern seems to be that the council proposes a CPZ and, if it is unsupported in the neighbourhood, they bide their time until they have had enough intervening requests for a CPZ. They then do another consultation and creatively interpret the results to justify a recommendation for the individual Councillor Decision to impose a CPZ

Extracts from 2017 Dog Kennel Hill Consultation Report.

2006/7 Area last consulted on possible introduction of CPZ (No widespread support of CPZ at this time)

As the response rate was over 10% the Council gives significant weight to the consultation returns.

Summary of key consultation findings

? A total of 2,471 consultation packs were sent out to 28 streets within the consultation area. We received a total of 365 valid responses representing a response rate of 15%.

? A valid response is a response from a resident or business within the consultation boundary.

? Street-by-street analysis shows that 14 streets support a parking zone and ten streets are against. Three streets were undecided and there was no response from Grove Vale or Henry Dent Close.

? The majority of respondents stated that they and their visitors have difficultly parking on week days during the day.

? 12% of respondents were undecided on whether they would like a parking zone, 39% stated that they did not want a parking zone and 49% stated that they did want a parking zone.

? It is clear that the largest group of respondents would like a parking zone on their street.

? 29% of respondents would like this parking zone to operate all day (i.e. 8.30am ? 6.30pm) and 29% would like the zone to operate for two hours during the day.

? 65% of respondents would like it to operate Monday to Friday.

Recommendations

Based on the results of the informal consultation, officers are making the following recommendations:

1. To implement a parking zone throughout the whole study area.

2. For the zone to operate Monday to Friday.

3. For the zone to operate for two hours during the day, 11am to 1pm.

My notes on the above:

1. The Grove Vale Consultation Report quoted the Council?s Parking and Enforcement Plan to justify the acceptance of a 21% response: ?The PEP sets out that the council will give significant weight to the consultation return when it exceeds a 20% threshold.? For Dog Kennel Hill the significance threshold has magically reduced to 10% to justify acceptance of a 15% response

2. 3rd bullet point: 14 streets for a CPZ. out a total of 29 ? ie a minority of streets for. Recommendation ?based on that? is to implement CPZ on every street.

3. 4th bullet point: NOT TRUE. Further on in the report the actual figure of respondents who stated that they and their visitors had trouble parking on a weekday is recorded as 47%. That is not a majority.

4. 4th Bullet point ??they and their visitors?? suggests that the majority of respondents were drivers. Why do non-drivers not respond? Non-drivers also have visitors and tradespeople, some of whom may refuse to come to a CPZ.

5. 5th bullet point: A minority - 49% - want CPZ. 6th Bullet point misleadingly implies that the majority were in favour.

6. 8th Bullet point: ?65% of respondents would like it to operate Monday to Friday?. How can that be true when only 49% of respondents want any form of CPZ?

MarkT

[mrwb]

I park around Goodrich, Barry and Landells road multiple times a day. In the last year I've never had an issue parking. Usually I would estimate there are 10+ spaces within 5 mins walk of where I want to be.

The only place in this area I've ever seen parking issues is on Lordship lane for the shops.

Interested to hear if anyone on here ever has a problem parking? If so which part of the area?

[roywj]

We are in full support of a CPZ. We live near Alleyn's & JAGs schools and have teachers, school staff parking here all day. In addition the new Charter school due on East Dulwich Grove will add to the parking pressure in the area.

Furthermore, there is a problem with non residents leaving cars parked long term in the area.

The areas around Herne Hill & Sunray Gardens seem much improved since the introduction of their CPZ. Roads much cleaner and more desirable as less congested.

[rendelharris]

MarkT Wrote:

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

> 6. 8th Bullet point: ?65% of respondents would

> like it to operate Monday to Friday?. How can that

> be true when only 49% of respondents want any form

> of CPZ?

Well, logically it can - "Do you want a CPZ?" and "If a majority choose CPZ, do you want it full time or weekdays only?" are two different questions.

[Abe_froeman]

Seemed perfectly logical to me too RH. Even if you don't want a CPZ makes sense to opt for the least impactful implementation of one if it goes through...