CPZ: Proposed Controlled Parking in East Dulwich

[Jacqui5254]

The Nappy Lady Wrote:

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

> At the local business meeting with the council the

> other day they told us they were collecting

> anonymous data from mobile phones to work out

> where people who park are coming from and if they

> are then commuting into town etc!!!

>

> You see they all seem to be saying different

> things at different meetings.

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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

> There is no mention of the traffic pillows

> proposed for Barry Rd ( at the above )on the

> current plans for a CPZ .My understanding is that

> such pillows will mean no parking either side and

> it seems odd not to integrate this with the

> current plans .

>

> Regardless of this, the proposed yellow lining of

> dropped curbs and their extension either side of

> the dropped curbs will significantly reduce

> parking spaces on Barry Rd .

Wil72 Wrote:

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

> Unsurprisingly, the 'drop in session' was totally

> chaotic, the representatives from the council are

> doing their best to talk to one person at a time

> so that no-one can really hear what anyone else is

> saying, thereby avoiding conflict. They are

> sticking post it notes onto huge maps showing

> residents concerns/errors with the maps etc, but

> surely they should be recording those properly?

>

> No one is asking visitors to sign into the

> register which I suspect is a ploy to claim that

> less people turned up than actually did. And when

> we asked what kind of research they had done to

> prove that commuters were using the area to park

> in, we were told that they didn't have enough

> budget to do that and were assuming that was the

> case. The research in the paperwork that they are

> handing out was dated 2015, so is also irrelevant.

> Apparently there are plans afoot for a secondary

> change of design for Lordship Lane in the pipeline

> too, so if we don't speak up about this, god knows

> what that will involve further down the line....

One thing that is very clear is just how disorganised and chaotic Southwark's approach to implementing a CPZ is and we are all walking blindly into a potential nightmare.

On the basis of this, we should all vote NO until they show us that they are offering a positive, well-thought-through solution based on facts and needs of the area.

We need to stop thinking "I want to park outside my house" and instead consider just what this will do for all the people who live, work, shop and enjoy East Dulwich and the implications for its future.

[Penguin68]

On the one hand, everyone obviously wants the normal council services - refuse collection / recycling, schools, libraries, road repairs - but the councils have systematically had their central Government funding cut and cut over the last 10 years.

Technically they are not allowed to use money derived from motorists in this way for things other than those associated with road conditions, public transport etc. So they can't tax motorists to collect refuse. In practice of course if they have more money to spend on roads they could re-allocate funds, but this must not be in any way transparent. So if this is a result you want, then you are asking your council to lie and cheat.

[Rockets]

The Nappy Lady Wrote:

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

> At the local business meeting with the council the

> other day they told us they were collecting

> anonymous data from mobile phones to work out

> where people who park are coming from and if they

> are then commuting into town etc!!!

>

> You see they all seem to be saying different

> things at different meetings.

>

> There?s no reason they can?t implement a 2 hour

> free parking with times ticket from a machine to

> deter commuters and free residents permits. But

> they need to generate revenue.

>

> Don?t be fooled.

I would be interested to know whether the council HAS collected data (also where does one get such data, wouldn?t you have to opt in to sharing such data if it is to be used for a consultation as you are basically tracking people?s movements?) if so why are they not sharing it, if they ARE collecting the data you have to ask whether they have wasted tax payers money on a consultation without actually previously determining whether there is an issue or what the issue is. Some of the cynics amongst might suggest they are now trying to retrospectively come up with the reason for the CPZ.

This whole thing is starting to stink.

[geh]

staggeringly arrogant and dismissive attitude from those running the drop in today. I am appaulled at how this whole process is dressed up as anything is anything other than trying to railroad Southwark policy.

This is fine, just please don't dress it up as anything else!!!!

[onlyk]

I attended the drop in today at push studios.

It was poorly organised with 3 people to answer any questions. Given the volume of people it would have been better to have two people at the map answering individual specific questions with the 3rd taking questions from the group as I?m sure some questions were asked multiple times. But the reps only wanted to speak to individuals which given the volume of people was ridiculous.

I had a couple of questions which were answered as follows:

What research was done to design the parking zones?

-It?s based on past experience and research in nearby areas. To clarify the current ?design? is not based on any research on the East Dulwich wants/needs as none has been done.

Is any of the feedback in the drop in going to be used.

No, only feedback submitted via the forms will be used.

Looking at the online design it looks like all the white lines by drop curbs are going to become double yellow lines?

- Yes, as that what people wanted.

(note - they?ve done no research in our area but apparently it?s what we all want, I know I don?t as visitors to my house tend to park there blocking in my car with my permission).

My view is with the ?parklets?, pavement extensions, cycle parking and removal of white line for double lines at dropped curbs there?s going to be a lot fewer parking spaces for the current amount of cars.

[Zak]

Yes, the drop-in was rather shambolic. Furthermore, the decision making process which Southwark have adopted, following the end of the consultation, is now not at all transparent:

- The Officers analyse the consultation results

- They present a report to the responsible Cabinet Member - Richard Livingstone - with their recommendations and

- The cabinet member makes a decision about what should happen in terms of the CPZ.

Compare this with what happened last time, in 2011/12, when Southwark carried a CPZ consultation in East Dulwich:

- The officers analysed the results

- They produced a report which was a public document, for everyone to see and discuss &

- The results in the report were formally discussed and debated the relevant Community Council meetings with councillors

Councillor Peter John even wrote a letter pledging not to implement a CPZ unless there was a majority in favour of it (see attached).

There wasn't a majority in 2011/2 and the CPZ wasn't implemented.

Southwark Council obviously learnt a lesson from that rather democratic approach!

[intexasatthe moment]

onlyk - it's not just double yellow lines across the dropped curb ,they will extend either side .

There are a couple of properties near me that have two dropped curbs currently with a large parking space inbetween them . The proposed extension of double yellow lines removes that parking space . No accidents have taken place with the current set up in the last 30 years .

We all know they will do what they want .The consultation is just expensive window dressing designed to tick a box .

[singalto]

The Cabinet minister who will allegedly make the final decision is up to his eye balls in Brexit, HS2 etc. He may well have never been to or even heard of ED. I suspect the decision has already been made and yesterday?s shambolic meeting was to try and pretend we have a voice. The drop kerb white lines are going to be replaced with double yellows extended by two metres at each end. Yet the woman from the council insisted that it would create 40% more parking!

[Zebedee Tring]

Singalto, the decision will be made by a Southwark Council Cabinet member, not a Government Cabinet Minister. It has nothing to do with Brexit, HS2 etc. Having said that, my confidence in the Southwark decision making process is pretty low, judging from my experience in dealing with the Council during the past few years.

[MarkT]

The extended double yellow lines provide faster passing place for through traffic, allowing rat runners to duck and dive, and allowing faster movement in and out of driveways across a pavement. Each crossover is, in effect a mini T-junction with no defined priority and a sort of no man's land between the parked cars.

The Council's reasoning on this is very unclear. Previous CPZ reports have stated that a "critical benefit" is the improvement of traffic flow through the area, which implies increased volume and speed but this round of CPZ's are entitled "healthy streets". The Southwark Streetscape Design Manual gave the reason for the extended double yellow lines as improving visibity with the note of caution that research has shown that increased visibility can lead to increased danger through speed. That note of caution has now been deleted.

The plans show quite a few new double yellow lines, providing those extended passing places, and where crossovers are close together, the 2 Metre extensions leave less than a full length parking bay, so the double yellows are just extended, so you are not even allowed to park a small car or a motorbike. There are extensive runs of double yellow lines in Hindmans and Crystal Palace Roads, for example, between them removing about 25 spaces, and giving an invitation to drivers for a burst of speed.

A standard parking space is 5M or so. With a pair of 2M extensions, if the space between dropped kerbs is less than 9M, the parking space is lost. So, if you live in a terraced house, and both your neighbours have dropped kerbs, you will find double yellow lines right across your frontage.

All this is guaranteed to make enemies out of neighbours.

[singalto]

Zebedee Tring, I was going on what Zak says in his thread about how the process works.. As far as the white lines being replaced with extended double yellow goes, I have a neighbour with a dropped kerb. When the white line is replaced with double yellow lines, the double yellows will reach the new extended doubles on the corner. The extended double yellow lines had already removed 8 spaces and the replacement dy will do away with another two at least!

[cella]

singalto Wrote:

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

> The Cabinet minister who will allegedly make the

> final decision is up to his eye balls in Brexit,

> HS2 etc. He may well have never been to or even

> heard of ED. I suspect the decision has already

> been made and yesterday?s shambolic meeting was to

> try and pretend we have a voice. The drop kerb

> white lines are going to be replaced with double

> yellows extended by two metres at each end. Yet

> the woman from the council insisted that it would

> create 40% more parking!

Singalto - it might be better to familiarise yourself with the processes involved before you post on here and criticise experienced elected councillors. It's exactly this sort of knee jerk reactions that has got us into the Brexit fiasco.

[brettonbull]

I also attended the drop-in session yesterday and would agree with the comments about what an inadequate forum it was for such a significant and contentious issue.

However, my reason for writing this post is that I wanted to make people aware of the following two bits of information that I gleaned from one of the project managers (Joanna(?), one of only two PMs in attendance (apparently, there should have been another one):

1) Re: Postal problem with the consultation document:

I asked Joanna about a rumour that I had heard that not all households had received the consulatation document. She confirmed that this was true; there had been a postal error so not every household had got the mailing. She said that they were dealing with this by sending out another mailing during the course of next week (28/2 - 1/2) to ALL households telling them about the error and asking householders who hadn?t had the mailing to either source the information online or proactively contact the Council to ask for a hard copy to be mailed to them.

2) Re: ?Why are we conducting a parking study??

This is the fundamental question and is taken verbatim from the consultation document. The answers are given as follows:

?The council has received many requests for parking controls to be introduced in the area.?

and

?Many local residents are finding it harder and harder to park near their homes...?

I said to Joanna that these statements were simply too vague to be either meaningful or appropriate to be used as the fundamental argument for such a significant matter, so what were the actual supporting data? She said there had been 117 requests during the last 3 years. (N.B. I forgot to ask if these were separate requests from 117 individual residents, or just a grand total that may/may not include some residents who submitted multiple requests).

I then asked how many people there are in the ED area, and Joanna said 7,000 (I think, but am not 100% sure, that she said that this is a combined figure for residents and businesses).

The person sitting next to me worked out that 117 is 1.67% of 7,000.

I hope that this information is of some interest.

Whilst writing, I have also heard a rumour of some form of residents? meeting about this issue being held this Tuesday (29/2) evening at the church at Goose Green. I haven?t been able to verify this one way or another, so can anyone help, please?

Thank you.

[brettonbull]

Apologies, further to my post above, I forgot to mention the following:

Re: (1) The postal problem - Joanna also told me that because of the postal problem, the deadline for responding to the consultation document had been extended by month from 31/01/19 to 28/02/2019.

[The Nappy Lady]

Something else I have found out.

At the local business meeting with Southwark Council I asked them why the business vehicle permit was so much higher than a residents parking permit (?575 versus ?125). It?s a huge discrepancy and as they claim to want to support local businesses doesn?t make sense. They say the permit fee is to cover the costs to implement the scheme, well the revenue raised is going to more than cover that and leave many thousands of pounds to be put into road repairs etc.

The council replied that ?the rate for business vehicles is set by central government not by them?.

This is true.....what they DIDN?T say is that that rate is the MAXIMUM that can be charged. Every council has authority to reduce the rate - so there?s no reason they can?t reduce the rate for business vehicles.

Imagine for instance some of our lovely Northcross Road stallholders who come to run their stall once a week, I can?t see that many of them will afford a business parking permit. Why should the businesses who are serving the local residents, employing local people and helping the community to thrive have to pay five times the amount to park a vehicle on the road? A vehicle that already has road tax, that serves a business that they?ve also paid huge business rates on? Personally I think all vehicles should pay the same amount if the CPZ comes in.

I think we need to challenge Southwark on this and remind them they CAN REDUCE the cost of the permits. In fact for everyone the permit could be less, though I fear we have little chance of them reducing it.

Do the maths of just how much money they are going to make on the permits. It?s a lot of money. Way more than it needs to be to ?cover the costs of the scheme? and as I?ve said before there are free controlled parking schemes they could bring in that would have the same effect without ?taxing? the local residents & business owners.

[geh]

brettonbull Wrote:

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

> I also attended the drop-in session yesterday and

> would agree with the comments about what an

> inadequate forum it was for such a significant and

> contentious issue.

>

> However, my reason for writing this post is that I

> wanted to make people aware of the following two

> bits of information that I gleaned from one of the

> project managers (Joanna(?), one of only two PMs

> in attendance (apparently, there should have been

> another one):

>

> 1) Re: Postal problem with the consultation

> document:

> I asked Joanna about a rumour that I had heard

> that not all households had received the

> consulatation document. She confirmed that this

> was true; there had been a postal error so not

> every household had got the mailing. She said

> that they were dealing with this by sending out

> another mailing during the course of next week

> (28/2 - 1/2) to ALL households telling them about

> the error and asking householders who hadn?t had

> the mailing to either source the information

> online or proactively contact the Council to ask

> for a hard copy to be mailed to them.

>

> 2) Re: ?Why are we conducting a parking study??

> This is the fundamental question and is taken

> verbatim from the consultation document. The

> answers are given as follows:

> ?The council has received many requests for

> parking controls to be introduced in the area.?

> and

> ?Many local residents are finding it harder and

> harder to park near their homes...?

>

> I said to Joanna that these statements were simply

> too vague to be either meaningful or appropriate

> to be used as the fundamental argument for such a

> significant matter, so what were the actual

> supporting data? She said there had been 117

> requests during the last 3 years. (N.B. I forgot

> to ask if these were separate requests from 117

> individual residents, or just a grand total that

> may/may not include some residents who submitted

> multiple requests).

> I then asked how many people there are in the ED

> area, and Joanna said 7,000 (I think, but am not

> 100% sure, that she said that this is a combined

> figure for residents and businesses).

> The person sitting next to me worked out that 117

> is 1.67% of 7,000.

>

> I hope that this information is of some interest.

>

> Whilst writing, I have also heard a rumour of some

> form of residents? meeting about this issue being

> held this Tuesday (29/2) evening at the church at

> Goose Green. I haven?t been able to verify this

> one way or another, so can anyone help, please?

> Thank you.

A further point on the above, the 117 requests for controlled parking were received over a 3 year period!

[alice]

And who knows if those people still live round here

[TheArtfulDogger]

According to southwarks own website, it was 98 requests over the three years https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/parking-projects/east-dulwich-parking-study-and-healthier-streets-consultation

[bonaome]

No CPZ no income from CPZ

No income from CPZ, no money for roadworks and contracts with Conway.

No contracts with Conway, no projects you can put your name to.

No projects you can put your name to, no point in being a councillor.

So, even if it turns out only a tiny handful of people want it, we will be having a CPZ.

I do sincerely hope I am wrong, on every point.

[singalto]

Brettonbull, there a DCC meeting at 7 o?clock on Tuesday. One of the issues being discusses is the CPZ. The meeting is at St John?s church by Goose Green. I went to the last meeting when the closure of Sylvester rd sorting officewas discussed.

[Rockets]

It may have taken Southwark 3 years to collect between 98 and 117 requests yet in a matter of weeks it looks like the Lordship Ship lane shop keepers have collected thousands of signatures of those against it. I wonder if the council will consider those objections.

[KidKruger]

As someone said earlier, the council will have made up their mind and are now going through the charade that is ?consultation? prior to implementing whatever they?ve decided to.

[SJK]

TheArtfulDogger Wrote:

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

> According to southwarks own website, it was 98

> requests over the three years

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

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

> ts-consultation

So, correct me if i'm wrong, that equates to less than 1% of the population of East Dulwich!!

[MarkT]

117 or 98 requests for a CPZ? Let's not quibble about the precise number. Either way it sounds more impressive than 1.4% spread over 3-4 years. By the way, does anyone contact the Council, unprompted, to demand the status quo?

It is all spin from their claim of massive unsolicited demand to the spurious title of ?Healthy Streets?. This is not an open minded consultation. Every bit of the Council?s publicity is biased and hard sell, even the section ?What are the disadvantages??? is turned to supposed benefits.

It is a vote counting exercise, and they are not interested in counter arguments (others have reported above that officers were not recording their views). If you have filled in the on-line questionnaire your vote has been counted. I asked one of the officers at the drop-in session what if a person had filled in the on-line questionnaire and voted (either way) at the first opportunity and later had reversed their view, or had developed a compelling argument to support a view, could they redo the questionnaire? The answer was that to avoid double counting, they would probably discount the second. As regards petitions, because of the possibility of double voting, or multiple voting, I got the impression, they were inclined to disregard them, relying instead on the on line responses.

[Wil72]

Where are our local Councillors?

Surely they should be getting heavily involved in this, making sure that proper consultations are being held, ensuring the process is transparent and holding Southwark Council to account over this?

There were no Councillors at the Drop In Session on saturday when we were there and I haven't see any involvement from them on this thread...

James Barber would have got involved- where are they?!

And why are people voting for Councillors that aren't getting involved in decisions that will have such a huge impact on our area?

As someone said previously, this is starting to smell rather fishy to me