Proposed East Dulwich CPZ

[intexasatthe moment]

or here http://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/parking-projects/dog-kennel-hill-parking-study-consultation

[Froglander]

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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

> or here

> http://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/parking-projec

> ts/dog-kennel-hill-parking-study-consultation

Wow. There was only a 15% response rate! 49% were in favour of a CPZ, 39% weren't and 12% undecided.

[rupert james]

That is all Southwark needs in their view to force their plans on the majority. Many people never even know these consultations are going on.

[Froglander]

rupert james Wrote:

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

> That is all Southwark needs in their view to force

> their plans on the majority. Many people never

> even know these consultations are going on.

Dreadful. Where does it say that amount of people is all they need?

[MarkT]

Where does it say that amount of people is all they need?

The 2012 Grove Vale Consultation Report had a 21% response. The Report justifies that as acceptable by quoting Council policy:

?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.?

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

Response: Yes 35% No 59% Undecided 6%

Recommendation: CPZ throughout the Grove Vale study area.

The 2017 Dog Kennel Hill Report justifies a 15% response: "As the response rate was over 10% the Council gives significant weight to the consultation returns."

I can't find the PEP on the Council website, so I don't know if that policy has been been rewritten to allow 10% as significant or if the CPZ pushers are making it up as they go along.

MarkT

[MarkT]

Apmuso, who declares himself as "campaigning for" writes:

MarkT - you assume that the ED CPZ scheme will be rolled out in exactly the same manner as the Dog Kennel one. Not what I'd heard.

Now, Apmuso, my assumptions are based on published Council documents. Are you saying that you, as a CPZ campaigner, are privy to better information?

MarkT

[apmuso]

MarkT - don't shoot the messenger. Just what someone told me in conversation.

And obviously can't reveal my sources...

[Siduhe]

apmuso Wrote:

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

> MarkT - don't shoot the messenger. Just what

> someone told me in conversation.

> And obviously can't reveal my sources...

Which rather suggests whoever you spoke to is treating the outcome of the consultation as a foregone conclusion. I think that?s a big part of my concern given some of the history here and what has happened with consultations in other areas.

[Passiflora]

rupert james Wrote:

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

> That is all Southwark needs in their view to force

> their plans on the majority. Many people never

> even know these consultations are going on.

But the summary of key consultation findings states that a total of 2,471 consultation packs were sent out to 28 streets within the consultation area. Southwark received a total of 365 back, representing a response rate of 15%.

[mynamehere]

My comment here below is general:

Statistics. Statistical sampling is a science. A balanced random sample that meets the criteria and reflects the demography of the question being asked.

WHY is the idiosy of consultations tolerated in an advanced democracy and an educated population

[KidKruger]

Because it ticks the box of appearing to engage the affected population by those wishing to implement the policy.

[mynamehere]

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> Because it ticks the box of appearing to engage

> the affected population by those wishing to

> implement the policy.

Yes, that is indeed the reason

So why do we not demand a statistical survey whose result we can consider reflective of who we all are

What would a statistical survey instead of a referendum for brexit have shown?

[northernexile]

15% response rate is disgusting and not reflective of the area at all.

How on earth can this be lawful? Come on new councillors, overturn this ridiculous decision that has been forced through by a handful of lazy residents with multiple cars who want to park 3 feet from their doorstep.

Utter disgrace

[Abe_froeman]

I think it's pretty fair for the council to assume that the 2,200 people who couldn't' be arsed to respond were happy for them to go with what anyone else wanted.

[rollflick]

Surely it's the people not responding to consultations who are lazy? And many people who want a CPZ - so space can be given over to wider pavements, safer junctions, cycling, greenery etc. - don't have any cars at all.

Anyway a journalist who lives locally has just made a film about parking. It's only six minutes long, really worth watching and very timely!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2018/oct/30/why-we-should-be-paying-more-for-parking-video-explainer

[Earl Aelfheah]

rollflick Wrote:

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

> Surely it's the people not responding to

> consultations who are lazy? And many people who

> want a CPZ - so space can be given over to wider

> pavements, safer junctions, cycling, greenery etc.

> - don't have any cars at all.

>

> Anyway a journalist who lives locally has just

> made a film about parking. It's only six minutes

> long, really worth watching and very timely!

> https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2018/oct/3

> 0/why-we-should-be-paying-more-for-parking-video-e

> xplainer

It's not as though the space is going to be reused for a different purpose. It's just more public space being privatised.

[first mate]

I think people cope poorly with being asked the same question over and over and possibly feel that their response may well be ignored anyhow in favour of the prevailing agenda. I really don't think the lack of response means all those non-responders are in favour of CPZ, it more likely means CPZ is going to be pushed through come what may and so people have lost faith in the consultation process full stop.

rollflick Wrote:

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

> Surely it's the people not responding to

> consultations who are lazy? And many people who

> want a CPZ - so space can be given over to wider

> pavements, safer junctions, cycling, greenery etc.

> - don't have any cars at all.

>

> Anyway a journalist who lives locally has just

> made a film about parking. It's only six minutes

> long, really worth watching and very timely!

> https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2018/oct/3

> 0/why-we-should-be-paying-more-for-parking-video-e

> xplainer

[Galileo]

Well I?ve lived here almost 6 years and I?ve never been asked whether I?d like a CPZ - residents do change, as do the conditions on the relevant streets. I don?t understand how the posters here know that the people who don?t respond to a consultation are against a CPZ - the point is that if they don?t engage then no one knows how they feel about it. All we know is that they didn?t respond.

I?m glad there?s a CPZ consultation going ahead as a result of residents requesting one. We live by the station and parking is a joke. Until you?ve spent half an hour circling to find a space whilst your 3 month old in the back of the car is screaming for his feed, or dragged 3 small children across numerous busy roads to get home from the only parking space you could find which is a 10 minute walk from your house, then you just haven?t had enough of the parking fun that we put up with daily! Not to mention the constant arguments between drivers trying to pass each other on our road that is too narrow because it?s parked up on either side.

An no, we can?t just use a bike - I can?t get 3 small children and related paraphernalia on a bike (tho we do use public transport where we can). And no we can?t use zip car, the car seats won?t all fit in the car - and where would I put my mum who often comes on trips with us since dad died? And no, we can?t take the train to the in-laws because we wouldn?t be able to get the kids around once we were there. There are so many reasons why, for a family, a car really does make a massive difference to what we are able to do. Please don?t assume that just because you don?t have a problem other people must be making one up.

first mate Wrote:

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

> I think people cope poorly with being asked the

> same question over and over and possibly feel that

> their response may well be ignored anyhow in

> favour of the prevailing agenda. I really don't

> think the lack of response means all those

> non-responders are in favour of CPZ, it more

> likely means CPZ is going to be pushed through

> come what may and so people have lost faith in the

> consultation process full stop.

>

> rollflick Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Surely it's the people not responding to

> > consultations who are lazy? And many people who

> > want a CPZ - so space can be given over to

> wider

> > pavements, safer junctions, cycling, greenery

> etc.

> > - don't have any cars at all.

> >

> > Anyway a journalist who lives locally has just

> > made a film about parking. It's only six

> minutes

> > long, really worth watching and very timely!

> >

> https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2018/oct/3

>

> >

> 0/why-we-should-be-paying-more-for-parking-video-e

>

> > xplainer

[MarkT]

Rollflick wrote

?Surely it's the people not responding to consultations who are lazy? And many people who want a CPZ - so space can be given over to wider pavements, safer junctions, cycling, greenery etc. - don't have any cars at all.?

Rollflick. The 2012 Grove Vale CPZ consultation report states that 10% of respondents don?t ?have? a vehicle. More answered yes to: do ?You? have difficulty parking, than to: do ?your visitors? have difficulty. So most of the 10% who do not ?have? a vehicle must be drivers.

So the many people who do not have car, who you say want a CPZ, do not respond to the Survey.

You say that non car owners want a CPZ to get people friendly streets. That is a very nice vision and it is well presented by the Guardian reporter, but it is not on offer here.

Look at local Controlled Parking Zones. They are exactly as the name implies. Boxes marked out for paid parking, and everywhere else restricted by yellow lines. Note in this context double yellow lines across pavement crossovers, extending well beyond the length of dropped kerb.

In its CPZ reports the Council states that a benefit of CPZ is that it improves traffic flow through an area, by providing more and longer passing places, with greater visibility around junctions.

The Council?s Streetscape Design Manual states that increasing visibility leads to increased speed. I am particularly concerned about the extended double yellows on dropped kerbs. The resident is thereby encouraged to cross the pavement at greater speed, regardless of the toddler on a scooter.

By the way, for the privilege of guaranteed speedy access, the off-street parker, I suppose, doesn?t need to pay for a Resident?s permit.

Under a CPZ all residents have to pay for their visitors and tradespeople. In the Grove Vale consultation 21% responded, almost all drivers. 59% voted No. The non-drivers may not be lazy; they probably think it does not affect them.

MarkT

[ed_pete]

East Dulwich and West Peckham CPZ Consultations to start in January.

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/parking-projects/east-dulwich-parking-study-and-healthier-streets-consultation

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/parking-projects/peckham-west-parking-study-and-healthier-streets-consultation

[Earl Aelfheah]

We need better public transport. there are simple things that could be done to make it easier to access the tube, or to cycle.

[TheArtfulDogger]

ed_pete Wrote:

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

> East Dulwich and West Peckham CPZ Consultations to

> start in January.

>

> https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/parking-proje

> cts/east-dulwich-parking-study-and-healthier-stree

> ts-consultation

>

> https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/parking-proje

> cts/peckham-west-parking-study-and-healthier-stree

> ts-consultation

Ha ha ha ha ha

"The consultation will run for three weeks in January. All postal addresses within the study area will receive a consultation pack towards the beginning of the month including the following:"

And with the post around here we will all receive them three weeks after the consultation closes 🤔🙄

[intexasatthe moment]

My experience of Southwark Planning is that they frequently extend consultation periods if there is a problem . It's worth bringing the postal issues to the attention of those responsible for this survey .

[Earl Aelfheah]

Soon the whole of London will have controlled parking. Everyone who can afford it, will be able to pay to keep a car outside their house, but won?t be able to use it to actually travel anywhere. Meanwhile teachers, carers and local shop workers can admire the unmoving ?cars as sculpture? on the privatised roads as they struggle on their way to work.

[worldwiser]

I find that hard to follow. If you have the means to own, service, insure, fuel, tax and MOT a vehicle, a parking permit will not be the thing that stops the maths working for you.