CPZ: Proposed Controlled Parking in East Dulwich

[jimlad48]

Jacqui5254 Wrote:

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

> jimlad48, I hope you weren't referring to my post

> when you said this.

>

> I spent several years living in an area

> controlled by a CPZ and it was much worse than any

> 'hyperbole' you think is on display.

>

> I would have so much more respect for you if you

> could recognise the wider implications of the

> choices people are making without consideration

> for what it means for everyone else,

>

> And, for that matter, the whole of East

> Dulwich.

>

>

>

>

>

> jimlad48 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Goodness me there is a lot of hyperbole on

> display

> > about CPZ. Its an extremely straightforward

> > process, which has minimal impact on people

> beyond

> > asking for a small payment to park their car in

> > the local area. Buying permits is easy and

> > straightforward for visitors, and isn't

> difficult

> > to do.

> >

> > I think a lot of people here are scaremongering

> > and pushing a narrative that those of us who

> are

> > lucky enough to live in a Southwark run CPZ

> don't

> > recognise.

I was referring to many posts that are extremely hyperbolic, and I am offering the counter perspective of experiencing life in a Southwark run CPZ as being a perfectly acceptable experience.

I would be grateful for orange owl to withdraw their abusive post please - totally uncalled for.

[Jacqui5254]

Oh god, I just can't be bothered to respond to your ridiculous position beyond writing this.

[jimlad48]

Jacqui5254 Wrote:

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

> Oh god, I just can't be bothered to respond to

> your ridiculous position beyond writing this.

So in other words, we have to say that a CPZ is BAD, has no upsides and that anyone saying its okay is to be insulted and ridiculed?

Our life was miserable without one - it has made a massive impact on our area by having one. I fully get people feel strongly, but there are plenty of people who want to see one, and I am going to continue to make the compelling arguments.

The more people insult and abuse me, the more I know that this is a fight worth staying around for.

[Abe_froeman]

I have to say, when i lived in Chelsea the borough wide CPZ was a godsend. Their local and independent businesses all over the borough thrive on residents being able to drive from all over and park outside.

Maybe the street by street permits Southwark go for are too unambitious and too retentive.

[Rosetta]

jimlad48 Wrote:

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

> Jacqui5254 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Oh god, I just can't be bothered to respond to

> > your ridiculous position beyond writing this.

>

>

> So in other words, we have to say that a CPZ is

> BAD, has no upsides and that anyone saying its

> okay is to be insulted and ridiculed?

>

> Our life was miserable without one - it has made a

> massive impact on our area by having one. I fully

> get people feel strongly, but there are plenty of

> people who want to see one, and I am going to

> continue to make the compelling arguments.

>

> The more people insult and abuse me, the more I

> know that this is a fight worth staying around

> for.

Are you in the toadtrack area?

[Sue]

Jacqui5254 Wrote:

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

> Simply put...in order for people to have a

> perceived chance of parking nearer to 'their' home

> on 'their' street , we all will have to live

> differently, and with much more stress.

>

> Whether you have a car or not, you will require

> permits for every visitor to your home, whether

> its for 10 mins or for hours. These permits cost

> a significant amount of money. You will need to

> pay for parking in all the other roads covered by

> the CPZ as 'your' permit only covers your road and

> one or two next to it. For those of us who bought

> diesel cars because the govt advised it was best

> now face paying ?3.25 AN HOUR to park in a bay

> that, without the CPZ, is free.

>

> Gone will be the days of browsing, window

> shopping, relaxing or taking your time.

>

> You will have to get used to clock watching, being

> constantly aware of the need to pay, to mark time,

> to note time, to use visitor permits, deciding

> whether or not to give a visitor a permit if they

> only drop by for a few minutes so you stand guard

> at the window looking for wardens, the

> over-running of permit time, the forgetting, the

> standing in a shop or cafe for too long, the

> regular sight of more wardens, the anxiety, the

> annoyance when you have paid for a permit but

> still can't find a space, the cost, the lack of

> flexibility, the loss of casual shopping and the

> fact that parking times remains in your mind

> throughout when you are parked in a time-limited

> bay, the extra road markings, signs, changes, new

> lines to be aware of whilst you are driving. And

> then the ?85 fines because, although you now spend

> an inordinate amount of time thinking about

> parking, vouchers, wardens and time, we are all

> human and life does not fit into one hour slots.

>

> Be careful what you wish for in wanting to park

> nearer to 'your' home. Think about the impact on

> others. Because once it is in place, there will

> be no going back.

Great post, thanks.

[James Barber]

IF the consultation for this and the West Peckham CPZ (north East Dulwich) results in CPZ then I hope it operates for one or two hours each day and different times for different sides of Lordship Lane and Grove Vale. This would mean regular visitors to the area by car could park for free depending on time of day and choosing the right side.

NB. I was always very frustrated as a local councillor by the odd local business owner vandalising the parking plates, stating parking restrictions outside their shops, so they could park all day without restrictions.

[rendelharris]

> Jacqui5254 Wrote:

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

You will need

> to

> > pay for parking in all the other roads covered

> by

> > the CPZ as 'your' permit only covers your road

> and

> > one or two next to it.

That's not the case, is it? Looking at Southwark's website it appears that a permit covers the whole of whatever CPZ your street is in.

[jimlad48]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> > Jacqui5254 Wrote:

> >

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

>

> You will need

> > to

> > > pay for parking in all the other roads

> covered

> > by

> > > the CPZ as 'your' permit only covers your

> road

> > and

> > > one or two next to it.

>

> That's not the case, is it? Looking at

> Southwark's website it appears that a permit

> covers the whole of whatever CPZ your street is

> in.

That is correct - as a resident you will be able to park in any street covered by the Zone for free.

[MarkT]

But am I correct that Peckam West and East Dulwich would be separate zones and a permit covers only one zone?

[James Barber]

Yes. Each of these proposed areas could be sub divided if the consultation results suggest this would work better.

[Cardelia]

jimlad48 Wrote:

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

> Goodness me there is a lot of hyperbole on display

> about CPZ. Its an extremely straightforward

> process, which has minimal impact on people beyond

> asking for a small payment to park their car in

> the local area. Buying permits is easy and

> straightforward for visitors, and isn't difficult

> to do.

>

> I think a lot of people here are scaremongering

> and pushing a narrative that those of us who are

> lucky enough to live in a Southwark run CPZ don't

> recognise.

The situation most of us find ourselves in now is that we have to pay ?0 to park our car. We have to pay ?0 to enable visitors, tradesmen etc. to park their cars. We have to spend 0 hours, 0 minutes and 0 seconds on applying for/renewing a parking permit, or buying visitor permits.

Occasionally we may have to drive around for a minute or two if there are no spaces on our road. But, with the possible exception of a few roads up by the station, there simply isn't the same parking pressure in the LL consultation area that you had on the toastrack. So the arguments you used aren't relevant to most of us.

[MarkT]

"But am I correct that Peckam West and East Dulwich would be separate zones and a permit covers only one zone?"

"Yes. Each of these proposed areas could be sub divided if the consultation results suggest this would work better."

James, you seem to be answering a different question. Can you clarify? Are you saying:

a) There could be a lot of even smaller CPZ's, so a permit would cover only a few streets, or

b) The resulting CPZ would be reduced and the remainder of the proposed area would stay unrestricted?

The evidence from existing CPZ's is that the whole area proposed ends up as a single CPZ including all streets that have voted no.

[Rockets]

I was positively encouraged by both the huge numbers of people who have signed the various petitions in the shops of Lordship Lane at the weekend and the passion with which the shopkeepers are trying to fight the CPZ.

[dulwichresident01]

James Barber - Do you have any evidence to substantiate local businesses vandalising parking plates? I don't recall there being any? Please shed some light.

[Sporthuntor]

...

[Carrie]

Just a reminder that there is a meeting for business owners/traders at the Goose Green Community Centre 62A East Dulwich Road from 2-3.30pm tomorrow (Tuesday 22nd)

[James Barber]

Hi MarkT,

I'm saying that the proposed area for each of the CPZ zones could be subdivided and that ideally the East Dulwich would be down the middle of Lordship Lane with different limited hours of operation each side. So at any time people can still park for free if they choose the right side. That would hopefully avoid the negative problems traders are understandable very nervous about. It should also mean more free spaces to park for visitors as the dumped car, very long time parked cars are moved on.

My point about West Peckham proposed CPZ one side of Grove Vale is the hope that the East Dulwich side will operate also at a different times.

[bonaome]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> I was positively encouraged by both the huge

> numbers of people who have signed the various

> petitions in the shops of Lordship Lane at the

> weekend and the passion with which the shopkeepers

> are trying to fight the CPZ.

I think, unfortunately, if even a very small minority of people on a very small number of streets support it, the council will roll it out in the whole proposed zone. I lived on the Shaftesbury estate in Battersea in 2001/2 and was astonished to find a CPZ was being introduced. When we lived there it was very unusual not to be able to park right outside your house. Council still put a CPZ in though. When I asked them why, they said a tiny number of people had responded in favour (e.g. like 23) to a consultation I did not even recall receiving. That was Wandsworth, but I'd expect Southwark to be the same.

[mrwb]

It's being done for the money. Profit from the CPZ will be spent back on road maintenance and transport reletated things which are paid by council tax at the moment.

Essentially CPZ is just another tax. Unless lots of people from outside the CPZ are coming to park, like commuters at train stations, workers or people coming to shop and making it impossible for residents it's pointless.

Government should change the law so profits from any CPZ have to be used to reduce residents council tax. The council does not own the roads. They should not then be able to privitise them.

We as citizens / subjects own them, it's scandalous.

[bels123]

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/walking-cycling-economic-benefits-summary-pack.pdf

I wonder if the LL businesses have considered the points raised here? A lot of positives if customers walk/cycle v drive.

[first mate]

But how can a consultation be valid if a majority decide against? Surely this would be completely undemocratic? Would Southwark Labour really force through CPZ without majority support for such a major change?

bonaome Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I was positively encouraged by both the huge

> > numbers of people who have signed the various

> > petitions in the shops of Lordship Lane at the

> > weekend and the passion with which the

> shopkeepers

> > are trying to fight the CPZ.

>

> I think, unfortunately, if even a very small

> minority of people on a very small number of

> streets support it, the council will roll it out

> in the whole proposed zone. I lived on the

> Shaftesbury estate in Battersea in 2001/2 and was

> astonished to find a CPZ was being introduced.

> When we lived there it was very unusual not to be

> able to park right outside your house. Council

> still put a CPZ in though. When I asked them why,

> they said a tiny number of people had responded in

> favour (e.g. like 23) to a consultation I did not

> even recall receiving. That was Wandsworth, but

> I'd expect Southwark to be the same.

[KalamityKel]

bels123 Wrote:

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

> http://content.tfl.gov.uk/walking-cycling-economic

> -benefits-summary-pack.pdf

>

> I wonder if the LL businesses have considered the

> points raised here? A lot of positives if

> customers walk/cycle v drive.

That's all well and good IF customers will walk/cycle but the trend is still to drive - much like the school run (everywhere not just locally).

You can't assume imposing any kind of parking restriction will make people change their habits.

[bonaome]

bels123 Wrote:

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

> http://content.tfl.gov.uk/walking-cycling-economic

> -benefits-summary-pack.pdf

>

> I wonder if the LL businesses have considered the

> points raised here? A lot of positives if

> customers walk/cycle v drive.

TfL are quoting meta research (that's review of various other bits of research) by living streets.org.uk - "The UK charity for everyday walking" who assert on their homepage, "Pavements are for people - not for parking, clutter, or electric vehicle charging points."

The actual report is here

https://www.livingstreets.org.uk/media/3890/pedestrian-pound-2018.pdf

It is a curated selection o research findings that support Livingstreets' objectives.

Even the report itself actually says in the editorial that the evidence is not conclusive and that it's very hard to apply any given findings. This is because places vary a great deal in their circumstance and none of the findings are in a scientific context. They are just observations. Whilst it may be true that on Bloor Street in Toronto cyclists spend more than those who drive, it may also be true that those who cycle to Bloor Street in Toronto live nearby and are students and spend half their day hanging out in cafes and bookshops and those who drive to Bloor Street in Toronto live far away and drive in to work in the cafes and bookshops. We don't know. And neither do Living streets, and neither do TfL. And it's certainly a leap of faith to suggest that if you introduced a CPZ people shopping on LL would spend more.

[Rockets]

Good points bonaome - the council throw these figures around without anything of any substance to back them up.

As I posted previously what we do know from the council's own study in 2015 (

[www.southwark.gov.uk) is that 22% of those surveyed on Lordship Lane had driven and many had come from postcodes further than SE22 and SE15.

And since 2015 I very much suspect the catchment area and footfall for the Lane has increased with the introduction of the M&S, cinema and other shops and the local independent traders are benefiting from this. What we don't know is what impact the CPZ will have on that % but you don't have to be a council planner to determine that it will drop and will have a detrimental impact on the independent stores.

Unfortunately the council are trying to push ahead with their plans (again) without taking the time (again) to understand the particular challenges of Lordship Lane and East Dulwich and seem to be hanging their prospectus on the basis that "because we have put CPZs everywhere else it is causing problems in East Dulwich and West Peckham so you should have one" but it should probably read "East Dulwich the cash cow we have yet to milk"!