CPZ: Proposed Controlled Parking in East Dulwich

[Carrie]

The argument put forward by SallyEva and RendelHarris also applies equally to any local resident driving a car - in driving away from their current local parking space they are adding to congestion on the local roads, adding to road danger in the local area and creating pollution - and, unless they are simply off for a jaunt - they will no doubt want to park somewhere at the end of their journey, in front of someone else's house taking up the space that a client of another business could have used. Every journey carries public costs - not just those of my employees trying to reach work.

Whilst there are car parks at most stations outside London, as Sally Eva rightly points out, on the whole they are quite small - not always possible to get a parking space, and once there the journey to work can be quite convoluted, involving a number of changes, unless you pay through the nose go into zone 1 and then out again to East Dulwich. Not everyone can afford either the time to spend 2 hours plus commuting each way or the premium for a ticket taking you into zone 1.

My question remains - why am I, as a local resident, entitled to 3 parking permits, should I so desire, whereas my employees, who contribute to the local economy, are not entitled to any.

[Sally Eva]

I think some of what is happening here is encouraging people to understand (and bear) the costs of their own decisions.

If your employees can't afford to commute to London except by car then perhaps they should look for work closer to their homes. Perhaps you should pay them more to cover the cost of a less anti-social commute or perhaps you should pay their parking costs in London.

What doesn't seem reasonable is that your business costs should be kept low by the road danger, pollution, noise and environmental damage caused by employees commuting by car from Kent.

[tiddles]

Maybe they cannot get a job near their home - hence the commute?

[Earl Aelfheah]

This is the problem. We're discussing the particulars without actually nailing down the principle first.

If we're going to create a hierarchy, in terms of who 'deserves' use of the public highway most, I can see no reason why residents should come at the top of that list? I keep asking, but still have not had anyone explain this to me.

It is no more 'legitimate' in my opinion, that I use the street to store a car outside my house, than for a teacher to use it for getting to work?

CPZs seem to be predicated on there being an 'entitlement' on the part of residents to exclusive, or at least priority use of the bit of road outside their property. Yet the roads are paid for through general taxation and intended as a public amenity.

[Earl Aelfheah]

tiddles Wrote:

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

> Maybe they cannot get a job near their home -

> hence the commute?

Exactly. The idea that there should be a right for residents to keep a car, but not for anyone to actually use one doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.

[nxjen]

Whilst Carrie is focussing on her employees who drive in from Kent, it would be interesting to know what other places they commute in from. It?s possible that many are commuting from places where travelling in by public transport is a viable alternative to driving.

ETA I suspect this applies to many driving into East Dulwich for work at all businesses.

[Carrie]

@ Sally Eva - your comment "...or perhaps you should pay their parking costs in London" - the whole point is that we cannot pay their parking costs in London - they are not entitled to a parking permit! In one case we are talking about a staff member who has been with us in excess of 30 years - am I supposed to tell her that she should consider getting a job closer to home?

Are you really saying that people should only work in their own locality if there is not a reasonable option to commute by public transport - it all seems a bit League of Gentlemen - local jobs for local people!

[singalto]

I?m guessing that people who drive up from Kent etc can start parking outside the CPZ which will annoy the residents there but is within walking/bus ride distance of the zone. I am against the zone particularly as my road has lost a lot of spaces through the extended double yellow lines and will lose another 3 at least over the dropped kerb changes. However, as I look out of my window I can see several cars taking up a space and a half. If those had been better parked, there would be far less pressure for parking. Drivers need to park more thoughtfully.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Perhaps we could build a wall around ED and stop anyone from driving here. We want local roads for local people.

[first mate]

And local jobs for local people. Unless you are able to work and function locally without using a car then really you should up sticks and live elsewhere. After all, the choice is all yours!

[Jacqui5254]

...and it shall be called The Entitlement Zone.

[d.b]

It's stuff like this that makes me completely lose faith in local democracy. The council feels like the enemy of the people who actually live here.

First the pointless double-yellow nonsense. Our (virtually traffic-free) road has had parking removed for no purpose or benefit. There was a consultation, I objected as did other neighbours I know, but of course the council go ahead anyway.

Now this CPZ which has the local high street up in arms, the majority of local people seem to either actively object or see it as totally pointless.

But the upshot is, something we had for free is now going to cost money. And not just that, but there will now be a massive hassle if I (as a non car owner) want to hire a car, or have a visitor come in their car, or presumably a tradesman as well, since it will require finding and paying for permits taking time out of my life to visit council offices nowhere near where I live or work.

I assume this is being driven by a need to raise funds (and I sympathize with councils who have been cut relentlessly by this government) and/or a principled objection to cars and driving. But frankly it's irrelevant. The fact is that the council will do this, we know it's just how they operate - despite campaigns and objections sooner or later they will impose their CPZ.

It's totally depressing and I'm not surprised so many people don't bother even voting in local council elections.

[alex_b]

Galileo Wrote:

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

> 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?)

I get your point, I also walk around the streets with a small child in tow so it's concern for me too. I am just unsure that the previous reduced corner visibility is really worse than the increased speed and corner cutting we've seen since the double yellows were installed. The proposed double yellows make no real difference to pedestrian visibility but will increase traffic speed and increase commercial traffic.

Unfortunately the Bellenden councillors are completely disinterested in constituent issues, they have never answered a single email I've sent over all the years I've lived here other neighbours have had similar experiences. I guess it's a symptom of living in a Labour stronghold, there's no pressure to represent your constituents.

Sally Eva Wrote:

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

> 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.

Thanks for the links and I agree a holistic approach would be great. I just see no evidence that Southwark are taking that kind of approach, hence my objections to the current scheme. As for speed humps, my observation is they massively increase the noise and vibration impact of living on a rat-run while doing nothing to reduce traffic volume and little to reduce speeding (particularly for large vehicles).

MarkT Wrote:

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

> 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.

My understanding is that while these are shown on the CPZ plan, they are in fact part of the quietway scheme. Residents' objections to this over two consultations have already been ignored and so these will occur with or without the CPZ. Of course that the additional parking pressure these create justifies the CPZ is purely coincidental!

[MarkT]

Another scheme being considered in total isolation is the speeding controls on Barry Road, which include the possibility of fixed or average speed cameras, with automatic penalties.

Previous CPZ reports have stated that a ?critical benefit? of a CPZ is improved traffic flow through the area. That of course is an obvious result of all the additional and extended double yellow lines.

What an invitation to the rat runners to duck and dive their way at unmonitored speeds through our residential streets.

When the Barry Road consultation was launched, the East Dulwich CPZ proposal was inadvertently revealed ahead of its intended launch. At a public meeting on the Barry Road proposal I put those concerns to the officers. They denied all knowledge of the CPZ. They would not discuss it - the Barry Road scheme could not affect surrounding areas.

Interesting that it is the same individual officers now presenting the CPZ.

Of course these schemes affect each other and must be considered together.

[NewWave]

All I have to add to this thread is the fact that in what is a tough time for retail and the steady death of our local high streets (which lets be honest are one of the main reasons to move to an area, one of the things that give it its character and life ) Putting controlled parking will effectively kill off small local buisinesses, and make larger ones think twice about opening here and investing in the area.

perhaps if so many homes did not have more than one car the parking situation would be eased considerably.

But it is none of my business if people are fortunate enough to afford to run two cars.

What is my business is seeing my friends lose their livelihoods as shops close and employment opportunities cease in our area.

when my only option for a cup of coffee is a chain like Costa because the small independents cannot survive

when I can only buy fish in a supermarket like sainsburys because shops like moxons can no longer pay their rent with dwindling footfall.

Having lived in Notting Hill most my life and having fought against controlled parking (along with my friends and neighbours who ran local businesses in the Portobello road and westbourne grove) by K&C when they wanted to extend it from Kensington into W10 and W11 areas and seen the wishes of both local residents and tradespeople and workers (teachers doctors etc) ignored by the council in favour of the increased revenue I very much doubt any opposition to this proposal will make a blind bit of difference

the council smell a potential revenue provider and will go ahead with the scheme wether we want it or not.

These schemes then have a negative effect on often poorer adjoining areas pushing parking out to those with no similar scheme.Notting hill CPZ saw this happen in neighbouring Kensal rise and kensal green with people leaving their cars there and getting busses to their work meaning the local residents there in turn encountered problems parking within a decent vicinity of their own home.

Lo and Behold Brent then had to introduce a CPZ bringing additional costs to the households in that area who needed a car and once more providing additional revenue for the council.

London is being killed by greed greedy landlords and greedy councils.

[Siduhe]

The thing that has been eye-opening for me is the idea that Southwark are reliant on the revenue from CPZs to run more general transport, street services and initiatives. In other words this isn't [entirely] about deterring commuter parking, or covering the costs of the actual CPZ scheme, but is needed at some level to cover other transport improvements/services under the general transport budget.

If that's right, and Southwark Council officers appear to acknowledge this - it makes sense of their desire/need to implement CPZs throughout the borough even when these are not widely being asked for, or across a broad area where parking stress is (at least on the reports here) more localised. It also makes sense of the idea that homes can apply for three permits - each home! If the aim is to deter parking and get people to use other forms of transport, three permits per household makes no sense.

As I've said elsewhere, as someone who lives just outside the proposed zone but walks, cycles and drives to the businesses on Lordship Lane where I do the bulk of my shopping - this isn't going to stop me popping in to North Cross Road market occasionally, but it is going to make me think about moving from the Neighbourhood Vet (if it's an all day scheme, as opposed to one for a couple of hours) as well as going elsewhere to do a more substantial shop. I appreciate that other people have different needs - especially those with young children - where being able to drive them places in a car and then come back and park near home is seen as pretty essential for those years in particular.

[roywj]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Perhaps we could build a wall around ED and stop

> anyone from driving here. We want local roads for

> local people.

We already have a toll gate!

[Pugwash]

According to documents, my next door neighbour has a dropped kerb which is designated to be a 'green' bay. Currently my neighbour has a fence across his front garden. He only needs to remove the fence, push aside a couple of large plant pots in order to be able to park a vehicle in his front 'garden'. The dropped kerb was granted over 20 years and only reason why the fence was erected as at one point as a previous tenant had young children and wanted to protect them from running out into the road. The property was also designated as a fully accessible flat for a disabled person with various aids installed and for the last decade has been inhabited by elderly/disabled tenants. None of them have owned a car, but a new tenant moving in may require this.

I have spoken to many local residents and nobody in Barry Road have indicated that there is a need for CPZ in this area. We are all aware that some parking spaces will be lost due to traffic calming measures drawn up by Southwark.

I cannot see any benefit or needs for a CPZ area from Chrystal Palace Road right through to Barry Road. I believe that some residents are undertaking petitions as they have discovered that not every household received the consultation documents.

[TaVa]

A CPZ 2-hours during the day would keep commuters out of the area without much impact on local shops and restaurants being frequented by people from outside the area.

However, why is Southwark Council proposing a 'parklet' in Zenoria Street in front of the 'Brickhouse' bakery, thus giving them free outside seating space maintained by the council?!? Did 'Brickhouse' suggest/ask for it?!? This is a residential street, thus customers (often with babies and toddlers) chatting there all day would be a real nuisance. And with the EDT just across the street, what would stop drinkers to use the parklet in the evening generating even more noise (and rubbish)? Even if the CPZ goes ahead, that parklet should not be implemented!

[singalto]

TaVa, the two hour CPZ won?t keep commuters at bay. All they have to do is phone to pay for the two hours from wherever they are. It would only work if they had to pay at a machine.

[rendelharris]

TaVa Wrote:

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

> This is a

> residential street, thus customers (often with

> babies and toddlers) chatting there all day would

> be a real nuisance. And with the EDT just across

> the street, what would stop drinkers to use the

> parklet in the evening generating even more noise

> (and rubbish)? Even if the CPZ goes ahead, that

> parklet should not be implemented!

I know, people with babies drinking coffee and chatting, what a bloody nuisance! When oh when will the police step in to stop this hell on our streets? And then in the evening the risk that drinkers in a perfectly nice and comfortable boozer will buy their pints, cross a busy road and walk fifty yards up a side street to sit on a bench! That's going to happen.

There have been many good and articulate reasons posted on here against many aspects of this scheme (even if I don't agree with them) - yours are mean-spirited and bonkers.

[Galileo]

singalto Wrote:

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

> TaVa, the two hour CPZ won?t keep commuters at

> bay. All they have to do is phone to pay for the

> two hours from wherever they are. It would only

> work if they had to pay at a machine.

It will if it?s a resident?s only bay (the dark blue sections on the map) as only the resident or a visitor to that resident will be able to park during the 2 hours. The ring and pay will only apply to the shared bays or pay only bays (which are green and teal on the map - but that?s from memory, best check the legend rather than rely on my memory).

[Eileen]

Galileo Wrote:

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

> singalto Wrote:

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

> -----

> > TaVa, the two hour CPZ won?t keep commuters at

> > bay. All they have to do is phone to pay for

> the

> > two hours from wherever they are. It would only

> > work if they had to pay at a machine.

>

> It will if it?s a resident?s only bay (the dark

> blue sections on the map) as only the resident or

> a visitor to that resident will be able to park

> during the 2 hours. The ring and pay will only

> apply to the shared bays or pay only bays (which

> are green and teal on the map - but that?s from

> memory, best check the legend rather than rely on

> my memory).

At the drop-in at Goose Green last week Joanna the CPZ project manager said that traffic wardens in cars with cameras recording registration numbers check on vehicles in 2 hour bays and they get an automatic ticket if they are there beyond the two hours. Did no one else get this explanation?

[MarkT]

I think as long as there are a few vacant spaces in a street there is no parking problem.

At the DCC meeting we were shown photos of an existing CPZ and told go visit see for yourself how well it is working - how empty the streets are.

Well not empty enough for one incensed resident of an existing CPZ, who complained that club cars were parking there.

Now I thought club cars were the good guys. Well Southwark, you did promise them empty streets.

[Charles Martel]

Pugwash Wrote:

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

> [...]

> I believe that some residents are

> undertaking petitions as they have discovered that

> not every household received the consultation

> documents.

Everyone needs to submit the consultation form, either on paper or online. According to what was said at the drop in session on Saturday the council will make the decision based on what comes to them via the consultation process.

Anyone who thinks that a CPZ will introduce some kind of parking nirvana into East Dulwich should read the following correspondence from residents of Grove Park in the DKH CPZ to the council.

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s72980/Appendix%203%20Pre%20Statutory%20Consultation%20representations%20Referred%20to%20in%20Record%20of%20Decision.pdf

https://camberwellconservationsocietyorg.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/2019-01-10-website-letter-to-southwark-council.pdf