CPZ: Proposed Controlled Parking in East Dulwich

[edlongterm]

Surely the MOST important issue is saving our high street

[Sporthuntor]

edlongterm Wrote:

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

> Surely the MOST important issue is saving our high

> street

This.

[nxjen]

Those who may wish to use their cars for short journeys during the day include

Stay at home parents

Those who work from home and the self employed

The retired

whose needs I would say are at least equal to ?the person travelling in from Hayes to work at the local nursery.?

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> The people arguing in favour of a CPZ claim that

> there are loads of commuters parking in ED during

> the day, not to work here, but to use our

> exceptional public transport - evidenced by the

> fact that you can park more easily in the evenings

> and at weekends, but...

>

> If you're a resident using your car to travel out

> of ED to work, you likely won't need a local

> parking space except for in the evenings and at

> weekends.

>

> If you're not using your car to travel into town

> (i.e it's parked outside your house during the

> day), you already have a space.

>

> So by your own logic, resident parking only really

> becomes an issue if you're using your car for

> short, local journeys during the day. I'm not sure

> we should be prioritising this type of use over,

> say, the person travelling in form Hayes to work

> at a local nursery (for example).

[Earl Aelfheah]

Do people who work from home need to use their cars for short journeys during the day?

Even for longer journeys, we have exceptional public transport - people drive in from Kent to avail themselves of it apparently.

Residents with limited mobility can get a dedicated space already, if they need one.

But even if we accept that those groups you mention have needs equal to those travelling to ED to work, as you suggest, then we probably shouldn't introduce a CPZ which would discriminate between them.

[Earl Aelfheah]

It all comes down to whether you think residents have a greater entitlement to make short hops in their car during the day and come back to a space, compared to local workers, or visitors, or shoppers, or even commuters. Or whether in fact, we all pay for the roads which are a shared public amenity.

[Sidll1]

This is an extraordinary first world thread. There are,you will be surprised to know, many non car owning people living in the proposed zone. Many of these are elderly, many do not own their properties, many are not very well off and some are not very internet savvy. They rely on visits from children, grandchildren and friends. A CPZ is not going to help them one bit and the cost of visitor permits may be prohibitive.

Get over your ?I deserve to park outside my castle attitude? think about your less well off neighbours and see if you can help them fill in their forms to oppose this scheme.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Sidll1 Wrote:

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

> This is an extraordinary first world thread. There

> are,you will be surprised to know, many non car

> owning people living in the proposed zone. Many of

> these are elderly, many do not own their

> properties, many are not very well off and some

> are not very internet savvy. They rely on visits

> from children, grandchildren and friends. A CPZ is

> not going to help them one bit and the cost of

> visitor permits may be prohibitive.

> Get over your ?I deserve to park outside my castle

> attitude? think about your less well off

> neighbours and see if you can help them fill in

> their forms to oppose this scheme.

Well put

[Sally Eva]

There are many benefits for non-car owning residents: cleaner air, quieter environments and safer roads. These benefits are enjoyed not only by residents in the CPZ but by residents on all the routes by which drivers arrive at the CPZ.

[first mate]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Sidll1 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > This is an extraordinary first world thread.

> There

> > are,you will be surprised to know, many non car

> > owning people living in the proposed zone. Many

> of

> > these are elderly, many do not own their

> > properties, many are not very well off and some

> > are not very internet savvy. They rely on

> visits

> > from children, grandchildren and friends. A CPZ

> is

> > not going to help them one bit and the cost of

> > visitor permits may be prohibitive.

> > Get over your ?I deserve to park outside my

> castle

> > attitude? think about your less well off

> > neighbours and see if you can help them fill in

> > their forms to oppose this scheme.

>

> Well put

This!

[roywj]

I am supporting the CPZ following the experience of family members that have had a 12-2 CPZ introduced in their area.

The introduction of a CPZ drastically increased the number of parking spaces available. This means that they are able to have visitors including tradespeople attend their property more easily. Previously there was no parking available in their area.

The roads with the CPZ appear cleaner, Prior to the CPZ there were many cars that were parked long term and street cleaners were unable to clean effectively. I remember seeing compost where leaves had decomposed underneath cars that were parked months at a time!

Some members of the forum are trying to make this a resident v commuter/service provider battle. However, they are missing the fact that there are a lot of cars parked long term on our streets in this area. This includes; cars for sale, people parking from other CPZ zones avoiding the charge in their area, collectors (there are some where I live) and abandoned cars.

I personally think that a 11-1 or a 12-2 CPZ will help the businesses in and around Lordship Lane. I am within walking distance but I know plenty of people who live a bit further away who will not visit as they are unlikely to get a parking space. The CPZ will free up a lot of spaces from long term parking and commuters.

Some commuters will still be able to park in the area if they decide pay in the limited number of pay and display zones. I understand that this is a lot less than available before but why should East Dulwich be a car park for people living outside the area to catch trains from East Dulwich? Commuters are able to catch trains buses closer to where they live. I have heard of people driving in from Kent to save money on their annual season ticket. This causes unnecessary congestion and air pollution in our area. Air pollution is a concern for schools in the area and any method which reduces this has my support.

[spider69]

Sporthuntor Wrote:

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

> edlongterm Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Surely the MOST important issue is saving our

> high

> > street

>

> This.

Surely if "our high street" cannot survive by local residents using it without resorting to a car there has to be some doubt as to its viability.

Many shops/business in the area have closed because local residents do not use their high street.

I may be wrong but I do not classify LL as a shopping destination. Bond Street yes.

[Abe_froeman]

Interesting point Spider and Rye Lane is chocka block with small one off independent businesses that survive in spite of their parking restrictions.

[TheArtfulDogger]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> Interesting point Spider and Rye Lane is chocka

> block with small one off independent businesses

> that survive in spite of their parking

> restrictions.

And rye lane also has proper car parks which helps people from out of town park 🤔

[roywj]

TheArtfulDogger Wrote:

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

> Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Interesting point Spider and Rye Lane is chocka

> > block with small one off independent businesses

> > that survive in spite of their parking

> > restrictions.

>

> And rye lane also has proper car parks which helps

> people from out of town park 🤔

Both Rye Lane and Lordship Lane have good transport links, trains and plenty of buses. People do not always need to travel by car, however a CPZ will free up parking around Lordship Lane to facilitate the car drivers.

[AylwardS]

Eileen, I think from your other posts that you live in the proposed West Peckham zone which last time I looked closed on 31 January so keep that in mind. I don?t see any reason that as an East Dulwich resident and Lordship Lane user but not resident in the area under consultation we can?t respond to the East Dulwich zone consultation.

The only way to get confirmed answers to your questions is to ask officers involved in the consultation. From his posts James diligently answers questions posed but I don?t think he is a traffic engineer. Also if you ask the officers it should be registered as a residents concern and taken into account. Maybe you just want another understanding before putting your views together. Here is my understanding of the answers to some of your questions

As a resident of the recently introduced Dog Kennel Hill zone the introduction of the two hour restriction has drastically improved the area, but commuters were our problem.

* how the limited time of paid parking for a couple of hours works to stop commuters paying on their phones?

This is not possible in the Dog Kennel Hill zone where there is just a two hour restriction and deterring commuters is a common aim of zones so I?d be surprised, if the Council let that happen. In the order for the Dog Kennel Hill zone payment is allowed for the two hours but a no return is set so any car parked there all day could be given a ticket. They are definitely checking cars in the Dog Kennel Hill Zone and we?ve not seen the commuter cars that were parking and walking to the station since the zone was introduced.

* will those of us in the Bellenden area (so called now by the Council 'West Peckham') not be able to use Bellenden CPZ permits to park in East Dulwich as it is a separate CPZ?

That is a point I will be making in my response. I believe any resident of East Dulwich who uses Lordship Lane should be able to park if they want. I believe this is possible but am not sure how it will affect residents in the roads directly off Lordship Lane as I don?t know how many people drive from elsewhere in East Dulwich.

* I had heard from Peckham town centre CPZ residents that they can park only in streets near them not the whole of the town centre CPZ. Are you sure it is throughout the zone our own street is in?

You will be able to park anywhere within the zone your permit is issued for. So anyone with a permit for the Dog Kennel Hill zone, Q, can park in any road in that zone.

The East Dulwich consultation has been extended to 7 February. The documents are online at [consultations.southwark.gov.uk] There is a drop in session where you can go to ask questions on 26 January from 1400-1700 at Push Studios, 17 Blackwater Road if you have questions concerns and want to know more before filling in the consultation.

[nxjen]

?* will those of us in the Bellenden area (so called now by the Council 'West Peckham') not be able to use Bellenden CPZ permits to park in East Dulwich as it is a separate CPZ?

That is a point I will be making in my response. I believe any resident of East Dulwich who uses Lordship Lane should be able to park if they want. I believe this is possible but am not sure how it will affect residents in the roads directly off Lordship Lane as I don?t know how many people drive from elsewhere in East Dulwich. ?

This would be the equivalent of someone living at the southern end of Barry Road parking all day in the Dog Kennel Hill zone whilst they commute from East Dulwich Station.

[Zebedee Tring]

.

[nxjen]

From the consultation documents:

?Who can purchase a permit?

If you live within the parking zone and your vehicle is registered to that address, you will be able to buy a resident parking permit.?

This implies there is no cross over from one zone to another.

[roywj]

Village Way CPZ was implemented this week and already there is a huge increase in the number of parking spaces available.

[ed_pete]

.. And what are you going to do them. Sit back and admire the space?

[roywj]

ed_pete Wrote:

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

> .. And what are you going to do them. Sit back and

> admire the space?

Breathe in the cleaner air due to less congestion

[Earl Aelfheah]

Rules which restrict parking for limited periods during the day are not about the environment, or the elderly and infirm. They're about some residents wanting the 'right' to make short local journeys by car (many of which could likely be done on foot), and be able come back to a space outside their house. It's about a fundamental belief that this is a more legitimate use of a car than people travelling into the area for work, or to shop. I wish people wouldn't claim noble motives when it's really about their own convenience.

[BeadyBoo]

CPZ will not reduce traffic flow down Lordship Lane, Peckham Rye, Barry Road etc so the School?s along these roads will still be subject to high levels of pollution. That added to the dust and debris from constant building works/ home improvements need to be addressed in a better way to improve the environment for everyone.

[Rockets]

I see lots of people quoting the success of freeing up parking spaces in places like DKH, VIllage Way or the toastrac but the problem in those areas is clearly commuter parking. The challenges along Lordship Lane are multi-faceted and a combination of commuter parking and people using the Lane to shop. And you can't solve one without impacting the other.

Lordship Lane is a thriving business street and it does attract people from distances further than walking distance away so the concerns voiced by so many here are legitimate.

I do feel sorry for people who find trouble parking near their homes but voting for the CPZ on that benefit alone is short-sighted - everyone needs to look at the wider implications - I did chuckle to myself when I read the comment on someone boycotting the stores in the Save our High Street campaign!

What seems to have been glossed over is the fact that parking became noticeably worse after the council extended the double-yellows lines to the maximum they could as a pre-cursor to helping justify a CPZ. I remember James Barber calling that out as wholly unnecessary at the time and it was clear it was a trojan horse and part of their long-term programme to get a CPZ in East Dulwich.

If you approach their current plans with that in mind you can start to see through them. Look beyond the made-up headline benefits, scratch a little deeper and ask some difficult questions and you will find they don't have the answers.

Speaking of which does anyone know how the traders consultation meeting with the council went?

[roywj]

Parking has become worse as other CPZs are introduced in surrounding areas. This will only get worse as other schemes are introduced in other areas.

From what I have read traders are mainly concerned about how they will get to work in the morning. They will be able to pay and display. Lordship Lane is mainly visited by local people and a CPZ will not affect trade. In fact a CPZ will free up parking to allow more people visit from outside. Commuters simply park up all day and are not around to spend money in Lordship lane, meanwhile blocking space for visitors.

East Dulwich has poor air quality and this is not helped by it becoming a car park for commuters, car salesmen and people avoiding CPZ charges in their own areas. If the CPZ is not implemented it will only get worse.