CPZ: Proposed Controlled Parking in East Dulwich

[jimlad48]

I know people keep saying that ED is a quiet non commuter residential area that doesnt need a CPZ, but I would note that that is exactly what we said 10 years ago in the Toastrack. We were a quiet non commuter area that had no parking problems and was generally a quiet area.

Our challenges started when other CPZ were introduced locally, causing commuter dispersal, and also 'cross border parking' (e.g. residents in the CPZ parking there rather than paying to park). When we got our CPZ, this then relocated further out - to areas which had previously made the same arguments.

Everyone thinks their area doesnt need a CPZ right up until you get one near you and suddenly you realise that you are now the parking frontline.

[Hemingway]

roywj Wrote:

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

> Jimlad48 gives a good insight.

>

> If you are unsure about the effects of a CPZ being

> implemented in East Dulwich have a look at the

> positive effect it has had locally in areas such

> as Herne Hill, Sunray Avenue, roads on the Denmark

> Hill Estate and last week Village Way. Even have a

> look on google maps and you will see a huge

> difference.

>

> People are also missing the fact that there are a

> lot of cars parked up that do not move for months

> at a time. I've noticed that many have been moved

> from Village Way onto East Dulwich Grove taking up

> valuable parking spaces. These are in addition to

> a number that have been parked on the road listed

> for sale but never seen to be sold. I understand

> there was a similar issue on East Dulwich Road. A

> CPZ will end these issues.

None of those areas have a strong, big independent retail high street which will be damaged by CPZ

[roywj]

Hemingway Wrote:

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

> roywj Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Jimlad48 gives a good insight.

> >

> > If you are unsure about the effects of a CPZ

> being

> > implemented in East Dulwich have a look at the

> > positive effect it has had locally in areas

> such

> > as Herne Hill, Sunray Avenue, roads on the

> Denmark

> > Hill Estate and last week Village Way. Even have

> a

> > look on google maps and you will see a huge

> > difference.

> >

> > People are also missing the fact that there are

> a

> > lot of cars parked up that do not move for

> months

> > at a time. I've noticed that many have been

> moved

> > from Village Way onto East Dulwich Grove taking

> up

> > valuable parking spaces. These are in addition

> to

> > a number that have been parked on the road

> listed

> > for sale but never seen to be sold. I

> understand

> > there was a similar issue on East Dulwich Road.

> A

> > CPZ will end these issues.

>

>

> None of those areas have a strong, big independent

> retail high street which will be damaged by CPZ

Peckham, Walworth, Camberwell, Borough High Street Brixton are all surviving and thriving with CPZs. I would argue that a CPZ will benenfit shops in Lordship Lane, especially is it is a two hour CPZ as offered as an option. It will limit all day commuter parking and stop long stay parking (months at a time from other areas freeing up more space for shoppers at other times.

We are now surrounded by other CPZs and the situation will only get worse without our own CPZ. I look forward to it being implemented.

[Zebedee Tring]

Thanks, Johnjohn.

[mrwb]

No reason to have a CPZ on village way other than to displace cars and try and force more need for zones nearby. Seems to be about 3 cars parked on it when I have driven past it in last few days.

As others have said probably doesn't matter what we do, the CPZ will be coming even if the vast majority of residents and businesses oppose it.

Southwark want the money, they are legally able to tax us with a CPZ to park on roads we own and that is what they will do.

Seems fairly certain in my area of ED there will be a lot less parking spaces available with a CPZ because Barry road will lose a lot of spaces. I fully expect it to be harder to park than it is now.

I haven't counted how many spaces will go due to double yellow on all the dropped curbs but guessing 50 at least?, can see on street view here:

Most of Barry road will be double yellow lines?

[intexasatthe moment]

No ,most of Barry Rd won't be double yellows mrwb ,car parking spaces will be lost but mostly it will be resident CPZ permit parking if the proposals go ahead.

[AylwardS]

Charles Martel has provided links to objections for Grove Park, and someone else has also put the links on the Councillor thread, from the initial, informal consultation. The zone did not go ahead as it was proposed at that time, but was amended. The response rate may have been low but the option was there to respond and changes were made to the design. I?ve not seen a post from anyone to say what the situation is in Grove Park now.

I checked the maps issued initially with the consultation for DKH and the revised maps and less yellow lines / more permit holder bays were included in Grove Park in the revised maps so if you have concerns about the mix of bays proposed for your road put that in your response and ask for changes the Council does listen. I?m sure Grove Park lost parking spaces as there are a lot of yellow lines on the plans - dropped kerbs? I know comments have been made that spaces will be lost because of yellow lines across dropped kerbs where visitors park with the householders permission but no yellow line means any vehicle can park there and not every driver is considerate. I saw a post on here from someone who lived by a school and couldn?t get their car off the drive as there was no restriction and parents parked there to take Johnny to school and when advised they were blocking them in the response was ?I?ll only be a couple of minutes?.

The report of the results of the consultation https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/4540/PDF%201_Dog%20Kennel%20Hill_Report_Final.pdf for Grove Park shows

* A difference of opinion from respondents on whether they wanted a zone

* A majority wanted the two hour zone - as introduced

* A majority wanted the zone to operate Monday to Friday - as introduced

There was a cock up when the DKH order was written which has now been corrected. I don?t know Grove Park but based on our part of the DKH zone I?d expect its better in the mornings, maybe not all day as it sounds like their issue is with parking for the hospital so its not commuter parking in the same way as here. It?s not possible for someone from outside the area to park all day as paid for parking is limited and the vehicle must move when the paid for time expires - see extract from order below

? (i) vehicles which have paid the parking charge of ?2.75 per hour (using 'Pay by Phone') may be left for up to two hours (provided no vehicle may return to a parking place on that same day), or (ii) vehicles issued with a valid residents' permit, valid business permit or valid visitors' permit may be left without time limit, between the hours of 11 am and 1 pm on Mondays to Fridays inclusive.

Located in GROVE PARK, the easternmost north-west to south-east arm, on the south-west side, at the side of No. 37 Grove Park (40 metres in length).?

I can only say the DKH zone has solved the problem of commuters parking all day near the station but that?s not the only consideration around Lordship Lane. If you think the issues raised for Grove Park are relevant to your road go down there between 11 and 1 and see what its like. Now the order has been corrected it can, and should be being enforced and that?s what you could expect from a 2 hour zone when its operating.

[intexasatthe moment]

"I know comments have been made that spaces will be lost because of yellow lines across dropped kerbs" - it's the extending of double yellow lines either side of the dropped curb that is going to have a significant impact .

Where there is a run of 2 or more dropped curbs the proposed extension of yellow lines wipes out the space between them where once a car parked .

I really feel this is needless and I am not perusaded by the need to improve sight lines for cars using the dropped curb .

[tiddles]

I think we can argue back and forth as much as we like - the decision has been taken. - the fact that

Southwark are spending all this money on ?consultations? following such a small number of requests given the overall

Population speaks volumes. They are desperate for some sort of revenue stream and this is perfect.

I do not think the council really give two hoots about the small local businesses.

The councillors have been instructed from up on high (general anti car policy - regardless of the realities of life)

So they will keep their heads down until it is done and dusted)

The extended yellow lines are the icing on the cake - its like they are all sitting in an office having a bit of a giggle....

[rendelharris]

Y'all know half the world's starving, yeah? Just checking.

[trinidad]

Why did the council wait until today, which is the deadline for the west peckham CPZ, to extend the deadline until next friday?

[AylwardS]

Re double yellow lines.

If you think they are excessive, in general in the zone or for your road say so on your consultation. Yellow lines in Grove Park where reduced after it was raised as an issue. It was even mentioned in the committee report:

?22. There are a significant number of representations from residents on Grove Park. Efforts were made before the statutory consultation to engage with residents and while the majority do state that they ?wholly object? to the proposals, it is hoped that by reducing the extent of double yellow lines on the street, the majority would support some kind of parking restrictions. Officers have reviewed the proposals and are proposing to reduce the length of double yellow lines each side of all driveways on Grove Park to one metre to create approximately 23 additional parking spaces. This is a departure from our design standards and original proposals (2 metres) although it is deemed an acceptable compromise when considered against the road safety risks involved (Appendix 5). The effectiveness of this compromise solution will need to be monitored.?

The Council departed from their policy so might do it again. If people parked considerately yellow lines would not be needed, if people drove considerately yellow boxes would not be needed. Unfortunately that?s not the case. The choice of length may be excessive but the reason for them is to improve access / safety. A ?one size fits all? will never exist.

I?m sure we don?t all agree with every rule or law but they are a fact of life. The consultation is a chance to influence the design of the zone. You can say No and still answer the other questions so if the decision is to go ahead the zone works as best it can for your needs.

[first mate]

The perception of many is that the current approach in terms of proposals for ED is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Safety is a fig leaf. Revenue is the real motivation.

[ed_pete]

Y'know, perhaps we should all just buy smaller cars. Problem solved !

[Penguin68]

My next door neighbour and I both have dropped kerbs, mine is probably originally pre-war as it 'feeds' what was a pre-war garage (from old O/S maps). His is probably of much the same vintage. We have space for two cars parked on the street between the houses - but with the extended double yellows there will be space for NO cars. Or, by our houses, a 100% loss of parking. The only people who park in our street are visitors, trades people or residents. No commuters. So there would be no benefit to us either of a CPZ or even just of double yellow extension. Except to speed up traffic which had to be slowed down with humps after a number of quite nasty accidents. The road is narrow enough for cars to have to give way for each other/ larger vehicles - but with all the space created by the double yellows...

[Eileen]

singalto Wrote:

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

> Eileen, at the drop in session last Saturday,

> Joanna told me that extending the double yellow

> lines as they have and turning the white lines at

> dropped curbs into extra long double yellow lines

> would increase parking in the CPZ by 40%.

Hi Singalto - do you mean they said the CPZ would increase parking space by 40% because of deterring existing parking? If not that, can you say how they said reducing parking space increases it?

[Penguin68]

What they mean - without any evidence, proof or study as regards the situation in ED, is that by excluding nasty foreigners and incomers (notwithstanding they will reduce, overall, parking spaces) there will be 40% more parking space for the residents of Royston Vasey. Without any study of ED this is a LIE - or at the very least a statement with complete disregard for the truth. This statement is only true when (1) the number of authorised residents cars is substantially less than the reduced space available and (2) the parking problem perceived by residents is caused by incoming commuters parking up to use space. Even then the implied assumption is that these are through commuters and not commuters coming in to work in the locale, where local business could also apply for residents permits. Indeed it works best in areas where there are no, or very few, local businesses - which could of course be around LL in due course if Southwark has its way.

[Eileen]

roywj Wrote:

> Peckham, Walworth, Camberwell, Borough High Street

> Brixton are all surviving and thriving with CPZs.

> I would argue that a CPZ will benenfit shops in

> Lordship Lane, especially is it is a two hour CPZ

> as offered as an option. It will limit all day

> commuter parking and stop long stay parking

> (months at a time from other areas freeing up more

> space for shoppers at other times.

>

This is not a comment on the benefits or otherwise of the two hour control system. It is to point out that Peckham town centre has three large car parks two of which are free for the first hour and half. Lordship Lane has no nearby car parks. My street is on the edge of the Peckham town centre CPZ and has been for the thirty odd years it has existed. Parking has got worse and is as bad in the evenings and during the night. Some think that is because of people in the CPZ streets nearby parking here. It's impossible to know.

I haven't seen East Dulwich Road shopping parade area mentioned in this thread. It would probably be badly hit. It is split between the two zones 'West Peckham' (ie Bellenden) and East Dulwich. The two CPZ maps are based on wildly inaccurate info about current parking on both sides of East Dulwich Road near the shopping parade that is on the north side.

At the Goose Green drop in, Joanna in charge didn't know that there parking currently available is much more than she thinks it is, most of which would disappear under her proposals. She was going on a map which shows the half hour free controlled space beside the playground. She had not realised that there was much un-controlled parking space on either side of that. In addition the south side of East Dulwich Road which is in the Lordship Lane CPZ area showed no parking at all in the CPZ. This is because she was unaware that a whole stretch opposite the shops is totally uncontrolled now. That whole part of East Dulwich Road on both sides manages itself very well. The CPZ will have a bad effect on the shops.

The fact that that small area is on the edge of both the CPZ maps means that few may have picked up these issues. Does anyone else regularly park there and have some familiarity with the situation there?

[Eileen]

trinidad Wrote:

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

> Why did the council wait until today, which is the

> deadline for the west peckham CPZ, to extend the

> deadline until next friday?

Some of us asked for it to be extended in line with the East Dulwich deadline as the two areas affect each other where they join. We were ignored and given much less useful extension instead of one which would enable us to have a discussion in the Bellenden neighbourhood. We were not allowed to have this on the Peckham Community Council agenda and we weren't allowed to raise the issues at the only public meeting there has been (for the Lordship Lane businesses) - ignoring the fact that there are businesses in the Bellenden CPZ area potentially as badly affected.

I tried a week or so ago to put a comment about the extension on the thread on this forum about the 'West Peckham (?North Dulwich) CPZ but was blocked I assume by the auto process even though I stripped Peckham out of the text.

[Administrator]

Eileen Wrote:

>

> I tried a week or so ago to put a comment about

> the extension on the thread on this forum about

> the 'West Peckham (?North Dulwich) CPZ but was

> blocked I assume by the auto process even though I

> stripped Peckham out of the text.

Peckham is not a banned word on his forum! Nothing was blocked by the Admin team.

[mrwb]

How many dropped curbs are there in the CPZ area?

How many extra meters of double yellow lines will be added?

Is it 2m on each side of every single one, where at the moment there is parking space?

[singalto]

mrwb, where I live we have lost 8 spaces via the extended double yellows and stand to lose at least another three via the ex dropped curb double yellow.

[Cardelia]

jimlad48 Wrote:

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

> I know people doubt the 40% figure, but go to any

> area pre and post CPZ and you'll find this to be

> the case. Parking massively increases compared to

> the previous situation. Yet despite regular

> repeated evidence to support this, people still

> doubt this. A shame.

In areas which are blighted by commuters, you may well see a 40% increase in available parking spaces once a CPZ is introduced. But as we've pointed out numerous times, there simply isn't the same parking problem in the LL consultation area that you were experiencing in the toastrack. In the main, we don't have commuters parking on our roads to use ED station. So where are the 40% additional spaces going to come from if there are no commuters to get rid of?

Take Hansler Road as an example. I walk down it pretty much every day and it's always busy, but not full. A quick estimate on google maps suggests that it's about 150 metres long, meaning a theoretical 300 metres of kerb space for parking. Once you account for the existing double yellow lines, dropped kerbs and disabled bays, there's about 240 metres of freely available parking on Hansler. Allowing 5 metres per space, there is room for 48 cars.

Due to the existing road layout (awkward dropped kerb locations etc.) I estimate the proposed Southwark CPZ scheme will remove 35 metres of parking, which is about 15% of the currently available space. Or room for 7 cars. Southwark are not even proposing to introduce any pay-only bays, or parklets, or cycle hangers etc. on Hansler, just the mere process of marking out CPZ bays using their stated criteria will result in a 15% reduction in space because of the additional double yellow lines that will be needed.

Given this 15% reduction in space, can anyone tell me how many commuters will need to be displaced from Hansler in order to see a 40% increase in parking? Is there any evidence at all to suggest that this correlates to the current number of commuters who park on Hansler?

[rendelharris]

The extended yellows are surely only enforcing the Highway Code stipulation about parking near junctions? In which case cars should never have been parking in those spaces in the first place.

[Rockets]

CPZs are like catnip to local councils and they will move heaven and earth to get them implemented.

I am so glad people are challenging them over these ludicrous proposals and scrutinising what they will actually mean. Once you scratch beneath the surface you see what is really going on and that their intentions are not at all honourable and that very few people will actually benefit from these proposals (except them).