CPZ: Proposed Controlled Parking in East Dulwich

[Passiflora]

doogsey Wrote:

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

> Would someone be able to explain how implementing

> a CPZ will increase car spaces for residents? Are

> a lot of cars that are currently parked in East

> Dulwich being parked and left on our streets by

> people from other boroughs, and once there is a

> CPZ all those cars will disappear? I'm genuinely

> interested to know how this works.

Yes, a lot of cars being parked in East Dulwich are probably being left by people in other boroughs and beyond (a lot from outside London) and of course they will disappear once a CPZ introduced.

[Rockets]

I wonder whether the Dulwich Medical Centre, or users therein, have any thoughts on the lack of non permit holder parking bays near the surgery? Surely this impacts the users of the surgery as many aren?t able to walk distances to get to see their doctor?

Does anyone know whether the resident permits will be zoned - most CPZs are road by road?

Also, I hope residents on roads like Silvester, Melbourne Grove, Trossachs etc don?t ever have visitors.....distinct lack of non permit bays there and if the few that are there are filled they may have some struggles to park.

The whole council document reads like it was put together as part of a student planning project, with ludicrous claims presented as facts that may, or probably most likely not, be applicable to what will happen in East Dulwich. It?s like the stat that people who walk to the high street spend 40% more.....do they really? Can anyone find anything to back up the council?s claims as there seems to be nothing more than the headline on their website? When we walk to the lane we spend less as we are limited by what we can carry all the way home.

I do hope common sense prevails and this doesn?t proceed.

[Passiflora]

But visitors to CPZ areas can park outside the hours. So if the area has a 12-2pm zone any visitors can park before 12 and after 2pm for free and also on Saturdays and Sundays.

[Rockets]

Galileo, I feel for you living next to the station and agree that it must be awful but the proposals will not deal with your problem and your sister in law will likely still end-up parking streets away. I don?t know what road you live on but do look at the number of non-resident bays on your road and work out whether if one or two other visitors are in the area, or commuters phoning from wherever they work to pay for parking, whether she will get a space.

Also, will the CPZ operate at weekends?

[TheCropolite]

Have your friends or family members heard of this thing called public transport?

It?s great. You basically don?t need a car and you can go anywhere in London using it. Better yet, a CPZ in East Dulwich will have no effect or increased cost on their ability to come and visit you! But wait there?s more! They also won?t have to worry about polluting the air that you, myself or anyone else breathes just that little bit less.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Just received the consultation through the post. It?s a huge set of documents. How much is this costing?

[ed_pete]

I am planning to submit a Freedom Of Information request to find out how much it's costing.

[Caesi01]

ed_pete Wrote:

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

> I am planning to submit a Freedom Of Information

> request to find out how much it's costing.

good idea

[d.b]

>It?s like the stat that people who walk to the high street spend 40% more.....do they really

Actually it seems common sense that people who live close enough to walk to the high street spend more (overall, rather than per visit) than those with cars.

However it's REALLY stupid to think that therefore if you force more people who currently drive to walk, then they will pay more. No... clearly not. They will go somewhere else where they can drive and park easily.

[matthew123]

It'll be a relief to me if they put the parking permit on my street, only few days ago I had to park few streets away. So many house conversions, disabled bays, double yellow lines on street corners have made it a nightmare 24x7. Unfortunately the permits are only Mon to Sat 8 am to 6.30 pm (I believe) but hopefully it helps.

Clearly not all streets are in need of draconian restrictions but in my neck of the woods west of Melbourne grove it is horrendous especially with the school and hospital soon bringing in extra cars. Why the council are jeopardizing this being approved by lumping in rest of East Dulwich is baffling.

[Cardelia]

jimlad48 Wrote:

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

> . The idea that restaurants will close is

> nonsensical. CPZ usually close by 6.30pm, hardly

> likely to defer business. The CPZ deters

> commuters, not locals.

Exactly. For most of the area in this consultation there is no problem with commuter parking. So why do we need a CPZ? Why should we be paying ?125 per year, plus the cost of visitor permits, to solve a problem which doesn't exist?

[Penguin68]

A lot of restaurants and cafes are open all day.

Exactly - restaurant and cafe economics require 'sweating the assets' - and there is generally quite a buoyant lunch time trade in LL - fueled in part by ED mums. How many of those come in by car is moot, of course, but I suspect, with all the impedimenta children now require that quite a few will bring a car closer before walking the lane. Removing local daytime visitor parking is quite likely to have an impact on local trade. And, like Brexit, once done always done. I have never heard of a CPZ, anywhere, ever, being removed (happy to stand corrected on that). A link https://campaigns.confused.com/email/newsletter/January2019/on-the-road/cost-of-motoring/councils-cash-in-on-parking-charges?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=brandawareness&utm_term=20190115&utm_content=nsl-nslopeners0-12months suggests that the motorist is a council cash cow - and it's getting worse. Without any concomitant investment in improving e.g road conditions. Once the CPZ is in, ramping up annual fees is a no-brainer. I see no evidence that Southwark's agenda includes supporting (or at least not undermining) local shops and high streets. The planning rules about not changing usage notwithstanding (and frequently they don't stand, when push comes to shove).

[Mscrawthew]

d.b Wrote:

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

> >It?s like the stat that people who walk to the

> high street spend 40% more.....do they really

>

> Actually it seems common sense that people who

> live close enough to walk to the high street spend

> more (overall, rather than per visit) than those

> with cars.

>

> However it's REALLY stupid to think that therefore

> if you force more people who currently drive to

> walk, then they will pay more. No... clearly not.

> They will go somewhere else where they can drive

> and park easily.

Surely anyone who walks will spend less overall because they are restricted in how much they can carry? That doesn't add up or make sense. Totally agree that they will go elsewhere!

[Hemingway]

Looked through the document this morning absolute no acknowledgement or suggestion that they've even thought about effect on local buinesses. Walworth Road and Peckham, although not as upmarket, were both badly effected as shopping areas when parking restriction were bought in (further afield Greenwich too). These business operate on thin margins even a 5% fall in footfall will have a big effect on many.

[Cardelia]

worldwiser Wrote:

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

> One or two roads, I have no problem with. Today at

> 11am Crawthew, Frogley, Spurling, Worlingham,

> Lacon, Nutfield, Archdale, Ashbourne, Matham and

> North Cross were all 100% full. I'm delighted to

> hear that there are parking paradises elsewhere in

> ED but where we are the situation is utterly

> dysfunctional. A CPZ is nothing short of a

> necessity and you will hear yelps of joy from our

> entire street when they start painting the lines.

> I'll be the one handing them cups of tea and

> biscuits.

If the roads are full at 11am but not full during rush hour, doesn't that indicate that the people parking on your road are likely visitors to LL and not commuters? It's debatable whether or not we should be discouraging this kind of traffic if we want to keep LL healthy. And besides, there are no guarantees that a CPZ will solve your problem unless it's an all-day CPZ, and there's no way Southwark will do that because of the proximity to LL.

Galileo Wrote:

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

> The number of times my sister-in-law has driven

> over for the weekend from Potters Bar only to have

> to park streets away and lug the kids and all the

> related paraphernalia they come with for ages

> along with having two small kids with her who keep

> diving for the road and running off, it?s really

> frustrating. Then come 7pm/8pm the road clears out

> when the commuters go home.

I have great sympathies with your sister-in-law's need to marshal small children over long distances, but the idea that a CPZ will solve this problem is not realistic. Southwark will not implement a CPZ on weekends because it would kill traffic to LL. Yes it might deter commuter parking during the week but that's not going to help your weekend visitor issue.

People who are pro- and anti-CPZ all agree that a CPZ is designed to stop commuters. It is not meant to stop people visiting a high street to spend money in the shops and restaurants. Unless you can be *sure* that your parking problems are caused by commuters and not by visitors, a CPZ will not help to solve the parking problem. And it may bring a whole raft of unintended consequences further down the line.

[Galileo]

Sorry I should have clarified that we both don?t work on Fridays so she arrives late morning on a Friday for the weekend, having travelled over her youngest?s naptime.

For those who say a CPZ won?t make a difference. I can park on my road if I arrive after 8pm at night or on a Saturday or Sunday, I can?t park if I arrive anytime 8am to 8pm Monday to Friday. If this traffic were going to shop in lordship lane then surely it would be there on sat and Sunday too? Those traders I have spoken to on Melbourne Grove/Grove Vale (I haven?t spoken to all of them, just the 3 I know) all have problems that their customers can?t park to visit their shops, or they are having to keep an eye out for their customers not getting tickets in the 30minute no return bays, I know one lady who moves her curstomers cars for her when the traffic wardens approach.

The consultation is, from my reading of it, on a road by road basis: this seems correct to me as the problems that beset one area do not necessarily beset another.

It is worth noting that the new Charter School and Health Centre both have limited on-site parking. The Transport Statements for them predicted 64 parking spaces would be used on street when both are fully operational - but it argued that these are readily available within a 300m zone of the site.

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Galileo - I guess that it's more difficult to park during the week because people tend to go away at the weekend and during the day, people drive into the area to work (teachers, carers, doctors, etc). I'm not sure a CPZ will necessarily change this.

[rare_breeds]

I've lived in ED for 5 years and own a car which my wife uses to commute to work in and I take public transport. I have a few basic problems with the proposed CPZ:

1. Disproportionate response: Southwark attempts to justify this enormous consultation and potential infrastructure investment on having received 98 complaints since 2015. In 2011 the census indicates population of SE22 being just over 21,000 residents, surely more now with flats and development. If we assume that 75% of the 21,000 residents don't drive or own a car at all and that the 98 complaints received in the last 4/5 years at Southwark came from car owners alone we could assume 5,250 car owners in SE22 (approx ballpark for sake of debate). This equates to complaints being made by 1.8% of car owners in the area and I think that's probably generous.... issues and solutions have to be proportionate and implementing a huge multizone CPZ in the area as proposed strikes me as totally disproportionate which leads me to point 2...

2. Local government taxation: With the above in mind surely we have to question the motive for such a proposed solution and as pointed out by many here it's simply taxing those in the area who own cars which would generate significant revenue per year based on figures above before you include pay parking, fines and guest permit purchase revenues. Those who have lived in CPZ parts of London know that while it might be ?125 per car per year to begin with you can expect that to increase every year ongoing along with the cost of pay-parking and permits. Now I know the Southwark wants to promote cleaner streets and less congestion which surely we are all in favour of but there are other ways to do so first such as more cycle lanes, pedestrianised areas and local planning which feels like a much better use of government time and resources.

I feel like Southwark are leading us to thinking that this is a much bigger issue than it really is and that it will find strong appeal to those among us who are directly affected by parking issues. While I do feel sorry for those who struggle to park near their homes, my wife included, we all experience imperfect conditions for parking in the area but you've got ask yourself, would you be voting for this CPZ to solve your own personal parking problem or is this right thing to do for our wider community reliant on cars in our area??

[worldwiser]

I think it's inaccurate to state that a CPZ is predominantly designed to stop commuters. Its purpose is to benefit residents. They are the ones who own or rent property here, pay bills and support the local economy vastly more than anyone else. Quite understandably, the available kerb space should be primarily theirs with visitors and shoppers still able to come free of charge outside of restricted hours. It seems to me that a CPZ is only controversial in ED. Everywhere else in London at this radius from the centre has one. Every city in the country has them. Come to think of it, every city in the world I've ever visited does and their existence is unremarkable. This is how sensible cities (and especially ones that were built for the era of the horse and cart) manage traffic.

[bilksy]

Galileo Wrote:

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

> If you live by the station like me, then you?re

> paying to ENABLE people to visit.

>

> The number of times my sister-in-law has driven

> over for the weekend from Potters Bar only to have

> to park streets away and lug the kids and all the

> related paraphernalia they come with for ages

> along with having two small kids with her who keep

> diving for the road and running off, it?s really

> frustrating. Then come 7pm/8pm the road clears out

> when the commuters go home.

Shouldn't it just be enforced to those around the station as I what I have read and heard its mostly the roads surrounding EDS.

Should this be up to what the majority want? or does this get approved on someones decision?

I certainly think businesses will be effected by this.

[Rockets]

I wonder whether our elected representatives have anything to say on the matter?

Apparently, a lot of LL shopkeepers have been trying to contact them to voice their concerns but they are being a bit, ahem, aloof....

[Penguin68]

Its purpose is to benefit residents.

How sweetly naive. The apparat (paid officials) who plan and execute these ideas have no interest or care for any resident - they wish (a) to pursue council policy which is to reduce car usership (and ownership) in the borough (for a raft of good and not so good reasons) and (b) to create revenue streams to benefit the borough. Local (elected) councilors do care (in the main) for their electors, but these have little say or influence (here in the south) on council policy. They are certainly not, in the main, driving it, although local councilors and past councilors are on the record of supporting some schemes (and opposing others, it must be said).

But do not believe that these proposals have any basis in 'benefitting the people'. Such benefits will be prayed-in-aid for schemes (ringing the self-interest bell where they can) - but this is simply marketing. Most of the pressure on parking is coming form (a) reduction in parking space by double-yellowing the borough; (b) people coming into the area to serve (doctors, nurses, teachers, shop staff etc.) local residents, © genuine increase in legitimate local residents with vehicles and (d) some amount of 'through' commuters - but probably less than you'd think.

[Lynne]

I will join worldwiser with the tea and biscuits. I might even stretch to cake

[rare_breeds]

Here here Penguin68. This is policy marketing and totally disproportionate at that - 98 requests from over 21k residents for a CPZ since 2015! How does this benefit the many in our community?

[James Barber]

Hi rare_breeds,

21,000 residents. Roughly 56% of households have a car. Circa 8,000 households in SE22 from memory. 1 in 80 isn't a huge proportion but is higher than other areas in Southwark who then had CPZ consultations that resulted in schemes proceeding.

If this scheme does proceed I would hope different times would operate different sides of Lordship Lane. Commuter parking would be stopped. People during daytime visiting not necessarily deterred from continuing to spend their money on Lordship Lane.