CPZ: Proposed Controlled Parking in East Dulwich

[singalto]

James Barber would have been fighting against this. I am appalled by the lack of involvement by our councillors.

[Penguin68]

James Barber would have been fighting against this. I am appalled by the lack of involvement by our councillors.

His track record I believe is to support the introduction of CPZs, certainly where a majority of residents have not come out against them. For a long time he was equivocal about the last proposals (for streets around ED station) but I believe eventually he indicated personal support (though prepared to voice the concerns of those against). His party, like Labour, would like to see car usage and ownership substantially reduced in London. There are perfectly good reasons why they believe this, even if they are not reasons I, and many others, subscribe to.

[Abe_froeman]

Whether you agreed with James Barber or not, at least he stood up and let his views be known with reasoning and engaged in the debate!

[Abe_froeman]

On the point about whether or not Southwark will actually listen to the outcome of the consultation, this may be instructive. It's another project in East Dulwich that will result in the loss of a large number of car parking spaces...

"You Said

We received 463 responses: 28% were 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied', 63% were 'dissatisfied' or 'very dissatisfied'.

..."

The scheme is going ahead as planned. That's what we are dealing with here.

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/eastdulwichtopeckham/

[Hemingway]

Can local councillors and candidates tell us where they stand on this issue for the record? this is a chance to engage us in local politics after all.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> On the point about whether or not Southwark will

> actually listen to the outcome of the

> consultation, this may be instructive. It's

> another project in East Dulwich that will result

> in the loss of a large number of car parking

> spaces...

>

> "You Said

> We received 463 responses: 28% were 'satisfied' or

> 'very satisfied', 63% were 'dissatisfied' or 'very

> dissatisfied'.

> ..."

>

> The scheme is going ahead as planned. That's what

> we are dealing with here.

>

>

> https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment

> -leisure/eastdulwichtopeckham/

Wow! Really what is the point of consultations? Such a waste of money and they're completely ignored anyway.

[Galileo]

It?s rather ironic that you have chosen that consultation to highlight the Council not listening to the responses to consultations. Rather than just go on the figures alone I have read the decision notice and recommendation that accompanied it ... the reason the Council decided to continue with the proposed changes despite the objections was that the objections were because the proposal was to remove parking spaces by the introduction of double yellow lines to improve sight lines and hopefully reduce road deaths. Why were people objecting? Parking pressure!!!

[Abe_froeman]

No, people were objecting on the basis of the future parking pressure likely to result from the proposal which might in itself enable the council to justify imposing a CPZ on the area...

[Galileo]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> No, people were objecting on the basis of the

> future parking pressure likely to result from the

> proposal which might in itself enable the council

> to justify imposing a CPZ on the area...

I just checked the consultation response document and it doesn?t say this at all. Any quoted response (although it didn?t replicate every response, just a selection to give an overciew of responses) that mentioned parking said parking pressure was already a problem. There were three mentions of parking restrictions - all of which were asking for them to be put in place.

[alex_b]

Galileo Wrote:

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

> It?s rather ironic that you have chosen that

> consultation to highlight the Council not

> listening to the responses to consultations.

> Rather than just go on the figures alone I have

> read the decision notice and recommendation that

> accompanied it ... the reason the Council decided

> to continue with the proposed changes despite the

> objections was that the objections were because

> the proposal was to remove parking spaces by the

> introduction of double yellow lines to improve

> sight lines and hopefully reduce road deaths. Why

> were people objecting? Parking pressure!!!

Actually that was the council's spin on the reason for many of us objecting. I objected to the additional double yellows on Adys Rd opposite Nutbrook and Amott as they will better allow HGVs and coaches to navigate those corners and increase the use of the road as a rat run for commercial vehicles. My anecdotal evidence is that since the double yellows at the corners were introduced we have had an increase in speeding and an increased number of collisions with the bollard at the corner of Nutbrook/Adys.

My (and many of my neighbours) were clear that our priority was stopping the use of Adys and surrounding streets as a rat run and that the proposed quietway looked likely to make the problem worse and not better.

[Sporthuntor]

I also attended the drop in session and echo the sentiments about the inadequacy of it, both in terms of the number of council staff available and the lack of proper information. I got some information/comment, as follows:

The number of requests for parking controls was confirmed at 98 over 5 years (so not the same information as others received)

- The launch of the process was a decision made by the council parking department despite the very low level of requests (1.2% of households over 5 years, or 0.24% per year)

- There was no impact assessment carried out on the effects on local businesses

- It was agreed that the other areas used as the basis for the potential positive effect on parking availability in the documentation accompanying the consultation did not share the attributes of the Lordship Lane area - none had a high street, for example. This would make the claims made in the documentation questionable at best.

- There has been no assessment of the financial benefit to the council. I found this quite incredible but it was confirmed when I asked the question a second time.

- It may be that the area covered is revisited following the consultation.

- The cost of the consultation process was not known - reinforcing the fact that no proper economic analysis has been performed.

My view following the drop in session is that no proper assessment of the economic impact of a CPZ has been performed, the claims made in terms of the potential positive impacts are over-exaggerated and the council parking department cannot be trusted to make an objective or balanced decision.

On the latter point it strikes me that they either they are creating work to keep their budget, or have an ideological desire to punish individuals and businesses that use cars/vans. Or both.

Until there is a fair and objective process backed up by a properly researched plan I can't support the proposal.

But of course, everyone can make up their own mind - I appreciate that not everyone will see things as I do!

[Sally Eva]

alex_b Wrote:

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

> Galileo Wrote:

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

> -----

> > It?s rather ironic that you have chosen that

> > consultation to highlight the Council not

> > listening to the responses to consultations.

> > Rather than just go on the figures alone I have

> > read the decision notice and recommendation

> that

> > accompanied it ... the reason the Council

> decided

> > to continue with the proposed changes despite

> the

> > objections was that the objections were because

> > the proposal was to remove parking spaces by

> the

> > introduction of double yellow lines to improve

> > sight lines and hopefully reduce road deaths.

> Why

> > were people objecting? Parking pressure!!!

>

> Actually that was the council's spin on the reason

> for many of us objecting. I objected to the

> additional double yellows on Adys Rd opposite

> Nutbrook and Amott as they will better allow HGVs

> and coaches to navigate those corners and increase

> the use of the road as a rat run for commercial

> vehicles. My anecdotal evidence is that since the

> double yellows at the corners were introduced we

> have had an increase in speeding and an increased

> number of collisions with the bollard at the

> corner of Nutbrook/Adys.

>

> My (and many of my neighbours) were clear that our

> priority was stopping the use of Adys and

> surrounding streets as a rat run and that the

> proposed quietway looked likely to make the

> problem worse and not better.

What do you want to happen Alex? and why?

[alex_b]

Sally Eva Wrote:

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

>

> What do you want to happen Alex? and why?

I want measures to stop Adys Rd being used as a rat run, particularly by commercial vehicles. This ranks far higher for me personally than the parking pressure. I appreciate that other neighbours may feel differently.

Personally I think a point closure at the Bellenden/Maxted junction would be sensible. For residents we can still get to points North via Nutbrook St/Nigel Road but it would remove at a stroke the through traffic. Failing that at least a width restriction at Bellenden/Maxted or somewhere along the rat run to stop through traffic of large goods vehicles. I (along with some neighbours) discussed this with the council staff at both of the quietway consultations/workshops and they said they'd look at it, but then of course didn't take it further.

I'm not particularly against the CPZ itself, I just don't see how increasing sight lines without also putting in measures to reduce the use of the road as a rat run will do anything to improve the health of the street.

And before someone says the heavy vehicles on Adys are all servicing local residential roads, I get woken by trucks banging over the speed bumps in the middle of the night at least a couple of times week.

[Galileo]

alex_b Wrote:

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

> Galileo Wrote:

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

> -----

> > It?s rather ironic that you have chosen that

> > consultation to highlight the Council not

> > listening to the responses to consultations.

> > Rather than just go on the figures alone I have

> > read the decision notice and recommendation

> that

> > accompanied it ... the reason the Council

> decided

> > to continue with the proposed changes despite

> the

> > objections was that the objections were because

> > the proposal was to remove parking spaces by

> the

> > introduction of double yellow lines to improve

> > sight lines and hopefully reduce road deaths.

> Why

> > were people objecting? Parking pressure!!!

>

> Actually that was the council's spin on the reason

> for many of us objecting. I objected to the

> additional double yellows on Adys Rd opposite

> Nutbrook and Amott as they will better allow HGVs

> and coaches to navigate those corners and increase

> the use of the road as a rat run for commercial

> vehicles. My anecdotal evidence is that since the

> double yellows at the corners were introduced we

> have had an increase in speeding and an increased

> number of collisions with the bollard at the

> corner of Nutbrook/Adys.

>

> My (and many of my neighbours) were clear that our

> priority was stopping the use of Adys and

> surrounding streets as a rat run and that the

> proposed quietway looked likely to make the

> problem worse and not better.

Aren?t there better ways to achieve that than allowing parking on the corners? I cross there with a pram and three kids to take my kids to nursery so I?m one of the ones who benefits from better sight lines! Pushing a pram out from behind a large vehicle on a parked up corner is horrid, especially with two other kids in tow.

(I do appreciate that problem tho, the roads are small and the corners tight for large commercial vehicles. I wonder if your local councillor could assist in putting this issue before the Council?)

[Sally Eva]

you could look at this: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/healthy-streets-for-london.pdf It deals with the sort of holistic approach that you are talking about. Speed humps may be better than nothing to deter rat-running (you may disagree about this) but we all recognise a truly pleasant street to live on.

also maybe look at this http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-liveable-neighbourhood-guidance.pdf

Low traffic neighbourhoods with clean air are what TfL wants to see and fund.

[Abe_froeman]

"- There has been no assessment of the financial benefit to the council. I found this quite incredible but it was confirmed when I asked the question a second time.

- The cost of the consultation process was not known - reinforcing the fact that no proper economic analysis has been performed. "

I ca't actually believe that the council can embark on this project without knowing what it will cost and whether or not they will be out of pocket.

[AylwardS]

The consultation has been extended to 28 February as advised at the dropin and on here. The consultation hub page says so https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/eastdulwichparking/, although the parking projects page still refers to the original date. Good opportunity to get information together on how this affects you. Hopefully the businesses with the Save Our Streets posters are getting feedback from customers as well as signatures. Being able to disprove the 2015 figure quoted in the documents issued by the Council of 22% travelling by car will highlight changes that may be needed.

I don?t suppose it?s going to be popular on here but the more I think about it an all day zone looks like the only one that will work. Initially I thought a part day zone would support businesses and bring relief to those residents who have problems parking but it will only be during the hours of operation. The rest of the time it will be like now, and if it affects businesses trade they would be very empty when the zone operates and then busy when it didn?t which with the size of the properties on Lordship Lane probably won?t help the businesses.

James Barber?s suggestion of different times each side of Lordship Lane so there was always free parking seemed a good one but I can see everyone rushing to move their cars from one side to the other with the associated accident / emissions risks. If you think this won?t happen you have a better faith in driver behaviour than I see everyday.

I know the question ?Why should we / visitors have to pay? has been asked but will the cost of a permit - less than two drinks a month - mean people who need a car have to really think about the cost on top of insurance, fuel (less than 2 tanks of petrol for us), service charges and all the other costs of running a car? Even a business permit, though high and I don?t want to lose our independents, is ?49 per month and from what I?ve heard greedy landlords increasing rent silly amounts is more of a problem. I know of one business that wanted to setup on Lordship Lane and went to High Street Kensington as the rent was more reasonable!

Whether you are for or against respond to the consultation

[tiddles]

So if 200 people request the removal of any cpz the council will respond accordingly?

[Carrie]

@AylwardS

...?Even a business permit, though high and I don?t want to lose our independents, is ?49 per month ...?

The problem is that you can only apply for a business permit if the vehicle is essential for the running of the business - not for commuting to work at the business.

We have employees who live in Kent with no public transportation available between their home address and the nearest station. Commuting to East Dulwich by car is the only feasible way for them to get to work, but we will not be able to get permits for them to allow them to do this.

At the meeting for local businesses the council representatives stated that they wanted to strike a balance between the needs of residents and businesses. Why am I, as a local resident, allowed to apply for up to 3 permits whilst an employee of a local business, who has no choice but to commute to East Dulwich by car,is not allowed one permit .

[Sally Eva]

Carrie wrote:

"We have employees who live in Kent with no public transportation available between their home address and the nearest station. Commuting to East Dulwich by car is the only feasible way for them to get to work, but we will not be able to get permits for them to allow them to do this."

No public transportation between their home and the nearest station does not mean that "commuting to ED by car is the only feasible way for them to get to work". Country stations all have car parks to enable their commuters to drive to the station and leave their car during the day. This probably carries a charge.

The journey carries public costs which your staff member does not pay. He or she congests the roads, adds to road danger in Kent and London, creates pollution and parks in East Dulwich using road space which is then not available for the customers he or she has come to serve.

[intexasatthe moment]

Where I live in Barry Rd parking is blissfully problem free . I know ,lucky us ,but we did choose to live where we live .

The CPZ proposals will revoke that at a stroke by the removal of so many parking spaces. Double yellow lines across dropped curbs wiping out adjacent spaces and spaces in between 2 dropped curbs .

Plus we'll have to pay .I would cough up the fee but not to facilitate making life more difficult .

[TheArtfulDogger]

Carrie does raise an interesting point, not all the essential workers in an area like this get huge salaries and as such they need to live out of the area. The cost of commuting has to be taken into account for them and if they then rely on costly or unreliable trains then it could make a huge difference to their income or ability to work here.

This includes teachers, shop workers, home care workers, and so on,

Should they be forced to seek employment elsewhere because people want to park outside their homes, then this could cause the infrastructure businesses to potentially not be able to function

Imagine the joy of being able to drive little Tarquin to school without fear of loosing your space only to find there are no teachers to teach him (illustration of worst case scenario just like the councils literature) or going to the only shop still able to function in the area on dog kennel hill (remember when it first opened and how it effected the lane at the time)

My thought here is be careful what you ask for, the grass isn't always greener on the other side of the road.

[Penguin68]

The journey carries public costs which your staff member does not pay. - other than through Road Tax (or whatever it's now called), fuel duty and VAT on fuel, general taxation, community charge for local roads... - where do you think public expenditure comes from? Even business rates and corporation tax are eventually charged out to the paying public through prices. 'Public' expenditure eventually comes out of someone's private pocket - even government borrowings have to be paid back eventually, so maybe your benefit is paid by your children or grandchildren, but then you're paying back a benefit to your grandparents. And public (rail) transport in the SE is directly supported by taxation subsidy.

[rendelharris]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> The journey carries public costs which your staff

> member does not pay. - other than through Road Tax

> (or whatever it's now called), fuel duty and VAT

> on fuel, general taxation, community charge for

> local roads... - where do you think public

> expenditure comes from? Even business rates and

> corporation tax are eventually charged out to the

> paying public through prices. 'Public' expenditure

> eventually comes out of someone's private pocket -

> even government borrowings have to be paid back

> eventually, so maybe your benefit is paid by your

> children or grandchildren, but then you're paying

> back a benefit to your grandparents. And public

> (rail) transport in the SE is directly supported

> by taxation subsidy.

I think you've misunderstood Sally Eva's point, she wasn't referring to financial cost but "He or she congests the roads, adds to road danger in Kent and London, creates pollution and parks in East Dulwich using road space which is then not available for the customers he or she has come to serve."

[MarkT]

In earlier posts, I?ve raised my concerns that pay to park bays in the middle of the zone might be blocked by all day parkers. Others have responded, with no supporting evidence or argument, that this will not happen and that it is a red herring. I?m not reassured. Unless there is a clear mechanism to prevent it, then it will happen.

The proposal map shows a length of green bay in front of the Community Centre, and likewise in front of, or close to, other community facilities, presumably deliberately sited for the users of those facilities.

I declare an interest in the East Dulwich Community Centre, but I think my concerns might be shared with other community facilities. The Community Centre is in use at any time of the day. Some people attending have individual needs to travel by car, but anyone running an activity, for an hour or two, may need to bring a car load of equipment, and arrive in advance and leave after the timed activity.

Even if that green bay was somehow reserved for users of the Centre, a 2 hour restriction, eg, would affect any such use of the Centre that overlaps that 2 hour period, and therefore actually have an affect over 4 or 5 hours. However, I?m suggesting that they may in practice not be able to park there at all.

The green bays are not reserved for users of that particular community facility but can be used by anyone, at any time, non permit holders paying by phone during the restricted hours. A weekend driver resident could occupy a green spot all week.

The proposal would therefore allow day parkers and/or permit holders to occupy those green zones continually, making them completely unavailable to users of the Facility.

There is currently no shortage of parking spaces at that end of Darrell Road or neighbouring streets. The plan reduces the number of parking spaces throughout the CPZ but particularly in that vicinity with extensive new lengths of double yellow lines in Crystal Palace Road and Hindmans road, removing about 25 spaces.