CPZ: Proposed Controlled Parking in East Dulwich

[intexasatthe moment]

I agree with you Galileo - many roads in East Dulwich are too narrow for vehicles to pass - the congestion ,road rage,car damage and pollution is not confined to streets near railway stations and is a widespread problem in ED .

The proposed extension of yellow lines may help this by drastically reducing parking for any vehicle ,resident or not . Which won't make it easier for a resident to use their car .

Pollution is a problem and I can understand S'warks motivation in wanting to reduce vehicle movements . Having a CPZ may reduce parking stress for some but won't reduce those movements ,but possibly increase them .

[intexasatthe moment]

"also if you need deliveries they can?t park, or you have friends or relatives coming to stay they can?t park anywhere near your home, tradespeople have to park ages away, or try to unload tools whilst parked in the middle of the road and then go and park ages away and walk back."

This issue may be ameliorated for the few by the intro of a CPZ in streets around ED station but it will be shifted (by the domino effect and the increase in waiting restrictions around dropped curbs which it seems is now part of introducing a CPZ )to a much greater nos of streets where there is currently no problem . And where some of us chose to live ,deciding to forgo the convenience of having buses and a railway station on our doorstop for a greater ease of parking .

The current propsals might reduce parking stress for a few ,increase it for many many more and increase vehicle movements .

[Galileo]

At a certain point it will no longer be worth people driving to the station if they have to walk the last x bit. The CPZ should therefore change the habit, rather than move the parking stress along. Also, with the medical centre and school opening up by the station, the current parking stress is going to get moved out further than it is already by people assuming they can drive to the medical centre, finding no parking nearby and parking as close as possible.

It won?t move the stress all the way down Lordship Lane, and you?d have to ask the Council why they chose the zone that they did, but it is going to have an effect. Those cars won?t be parking on our street - the commuters are already there, but having driven to the site because they?ve seen free onstreet parking online, they will then have to park where they can to get to their appointments.

[Penguin68]

I have just walked down the stretch of Underhill Road leading from Langton Rise to Melford Road. If no parking over dropped curbs is 'extended' by 2 metres on each side of the dropped curb there will be double yellows going down virtually both sides of the road (because there are a lot of entrances and dropped curbs). Although there is, as yet, no CPZ proposal for that stretch, the effect of the new rules anyway will be to reduce street parking to zero. There would not be an option to get 'passes' for services and deliveries, as it would be all double yellows allowing NO parking at all. As opposed to 1-2 cars being able to park between every dropped curb at present. This whole thing is complete madness and you can see there what the impact of the council policy is/ would/ will be.

[Hemingway]

So basically..

Top Down, statist goverment

Anti-car

Anti-Business

Labour 2019 writ local

[intexasatthe moment]

It's not all about commuter parking and it fizzling out or not the further away from the station .

A CPZ in one area increases parking in adjacent roads .This has already been demonstrated .

In addition S'wark propose to extend yellow lines in new CPZ areas ,this removes vehicle parking ,and guess what - increases both parking "stress" and vehicle movements .

[Abe_froeman]

The doduble yellows in some streets are going to be very extensive.

[Rockets]

Galileo,

I am interested, you're obviously local to the Lane and I presume you use it - does it not slightly concern you that the CPZ may have a negative impact on its ability to thrive?

I ran down Village Way today and the CPZ has certainly had an impact there - there was not a single car parked on either side of the road for the length of the road, great for the residents on that road but a bit of a white elephant as all the houses have driveways.

But you have to ask, where have all those cars gone (and I presume they were commuters) - when it comes to commuting people do not change their habits they just adapt them? The only beneficiaries to that CPZ seem to be the people dropping off/picking up their kids at JAPS, JAGS or Alleyns.

[Galileo]

Rockets

Yes, of course I care about local businesses. I?m one of their customers too. I particularly care about the ones I know right by me, and they suffer from the same problem: their customers can?t park.

As for Lordship Lane, it seems to be that deterring train station commuters or car-dumpers, who aren?t contributing to the local economy should free up spaces to allow people to drive to the Lane if they need to. Now if a parking charge focussed their mind on whether they need to drive, or a different method of transport is required, that might be a good thing. There are of course times when everyone needs to drive, but congestion and air quality is a real issue and nudging people?s behaviour away from cars where possible is a good thing. Did you see the report on BBC News this week about the affect of air quality on kids growth and development. It?s a sickening realisation what is happening to our kids. We use our car when we have to, when public transport and walking/scooting/biking/pram really isn?t practical, but for the most part we try to plan our journeys around active travel and public transport. That doesn?t mean we never need to use the car, it means the times we need to use the car are lessened.

[rendelharris]

Hemingway Wrote:

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

> So basically..

>

> Top Down, statist goverment

> Anti-car

> Anti-Business

>

> Labour 2019 writ local

Yeah, because good old Tory-since-1978 Wandsworth has no CPZs at all, does it (it has dozens). Seen a lot of free parking spaces in Tory Kensington and Chelsea? What a pathetic attempt to push party political nonsense onto a local issue.

[Cardelia]

Galileo Wrote:

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

> Aside from the myriad of reasons why people may

> need to use their car, we also suffer our cars

> being scratched and dented as people try, and

> fail, to pass on a road narrowed by cars parked on

> each side, there is constant congestion and

> beeping as cars try to pass, the air quality

> suffers as cars try to pass, try crossing a road

> with a buggy where there?s no gaps between the

> cars, try crossing a road with small children

> where you?re all emerging from behind parked cars

> because there?s no option. The effect of parking

> stress goes beyond whether you can use your car or

> not.

>

> Edited to add: also if you need deliveries they

> can?t park, or you have friends or relatives

> coming to stay they can?t park anywhere near your

> home, tradespeople have to park ages away, or try

> to unload tools whilst parked in the middle of the

> road and then go and park ages away and walk back.

As I've previously mentioned, I walk down Melbourne Grove every day to get to ED station. On the bit north of EDG, apart from all the dropped kerbs creating natural gaps for pedestrians to cross, there is also a 10 metre stretch of road with a single yellow line. You can't park here, but there are no loading restrictions hence any tradesman (or visitor with small children...) can load/unload before reparking elsewhere. One other thing that I've noticed is how many of the cars don't move very often. If I wander down to ED station on a weekend I still see many of the same cars that I see on weekdays, which implies they belong to residents and not commuters.

By the way, you shouldn't take Southwark's promises of 40% more parking at face value. Do your own research and decide whether their claims are realistic or not. My estimate is that if the CPZ proposals come in, you'll lose over 40 metres of current freely available parking on Melbourne (north side) due to the increased double yellow lines. That's room for 8 cars. There are also a couple of dropped kerbs on Melbourne which aren't marked on the CPZ plan, so that would be the equivalent of another two parking spots gone due to the double yellows. 10 spaces. That's a lot to lose.

The question you need to ask yourself is whether the loss of 10 parking spaces (plus the additional ?125 per year per permit) is a good trade-off for getting rid of commuters.

[Hemingway]

Oh gawd, I seem to have aroused the wrath of the EDF's angry Policeman

LOL Kensington and Chelsea being comparable to SE22.

I don't have complete knowledge of Wandswoth CPZ's but I think they tend to be in its central/high retail/high flat density areas, not East Dulwich type places.

Unrelated, I hear The Palmerston is not getting its lease renewed, so is closing in June - I do fear for the Lane at the moment, and the CPZ will not help

[goldilocks]

As you have noted - the closure of the Palmerston is completely unrelated to CPZ, and seemingly as a result of the landlord not renewing their lease.

Either they think they can get someone who pays more (and therefore don?t think that a possible cpz spells economic doom for their location) or they want to change use.

Either way I?ll be really sad to see the Palmerston go, but it really isn?t linked to this discussion.

[rendelharris]

Hemingway Wrote:

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

> Oh gawd, I seem to have aroused the wrath of the

> EDF's angry Policeman

>

> LOL Kensington and Chelsea being comparable to

> SE22.

>

> I don't have complete knowledge of Wandswoth CPZ's

> but I think they tend to be in its central/high

> retail/high flat density areas, not East Dulwich

> type places.

>

> Unrelated, I hear The Palmerston is not getting

> its lease renewed, so is closing in June - I do

> fear for the Lane at the moment, and the CPZ will

> not help

As Goldilocks says, if the lease owners thought Lordship Lane is about to be in trouble they would have jumped at the chance to renew the lease, they obviously think they can get more for it.

LOL? What are you, six? Actually, that would explain a lot of your posting history.

[Hemingway]

In case you haven't noticed practiaclly all of the active businessess on the Lane have stop the CPZ posters and petitions, I'll trust their judgement rather than a greedy Leaseowner.

Accusing me of being childish! "LOL? What are you, six? Actually, that would explain a lot of your posting history" - straight out of the playground!

You seem to make a habit of falling out with a lot of people on here - always their fault I notice. Maybe some self-reflection might help.

I am sure you're fine in real life, on here you come over as bit of a tosser to be honest!

[first mate]

Hemingway clearly prefaced his/ her comment on the Palmerston with the word "unrelated".

Think your final comment was unnecessary Rendel and not worthy of you.

[rendelharris]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Hemingway clearly prefaced his/ her comment on the

> Palmerston with the word "unrelated".

>

> Think your final comment was unnecessary Rendel

> and not worthy of you.

Really? Is that the level of debate we want on here, someone makes a serious comment and Hemingway responds "LOL"?

[Zebedee Tring]

Jimlad 48, you say that someone complained that they were delayed for their own funeral. Making a complaint after one's death is a remarkable achievement. Perhaps they did so after rising on the third day!

[Galileo]

Cardelia Wrote:

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

> Galileo Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Aside from the myriad of reasons why people may

> > need to use their car, we also suffer our cars

> > being scratched and dented as people try, and

> > fail, to pass on a road narrowed by cars parked

> on

> > each side, there is constant congestion and

> > beeping as cars try to pass, the air quality

> > suffers as cars try to pass, try crossing a

> road

> > with a buggy where there?s no gaps between the

> > cars, try crossing a road with small children

> > where you?re all emerging from behind parked

> cars

> > because there?s no option. The effect of

> parking

> > stress goes beyond whether you can use your car

> or

> > not.

> >

> > Edited to add: also if you need deliveries they

> > can?t park, or you have friends or relatives

> > coming to stay they can?t park anywhere near

> your

> > home, tradespeople have to park ages away, or

> try

> > to unload tools whilst parked in the middle of

> the

> > road and then go and park ages away and walk

> back.

>

> As I've previously mentioned, I walk down

> Melbourne Grove every day to get to ED station. On

> the bit north of EDG, apart from all the dropped

> kerbs creating natural gaps for pedestrians to

> cross, there is also a 10 metre stretch of road

> with a single yellow line. You can't park here,

> but there are no loading restrictions hence any

> tradesman (or visitor with small children...) can

> load/unload before reparking elsewhere. One other

> thing that I've noticed is how many of the cars

> don't move very often. If I wander down to ED

> station on a weekend I still see many of the same

> cars that I see on weekdays, which implies they

> belong to residents and not commuters.

>

> By the way, you shouldn't take Southwark's

> promises of 40% more parking at face value. Do

> your own research and decide whether their claims

> are realistic or not. My estimate is that if the

> CPZ proposals come in, you'll lose over 40 metres

> of current freely available parking on Melbourne

> (north side) due to the increased double yellow

> lines. That's room for 8 cars. There are also a

> couple of dropped kerbs on Melbourne which aren't

> marked on the CPZ plan, so that would be the

> equivalent of another two parking spots gone due

> to the double yellows. 10 spaces. That's a lot to

> lose.

>

> The question you need to ask yourself is whether

> the loss of 10 parking spaces (plus the additional

> ?125 per year per permit) is a good trade-off for

> getting rid of commuters.

Thanks Cardelia. You?re right, I was giving a general sense of the wider implications of parking stress rather than only those right outside my own front door. The ones about no passing places are ones I find when I?m on other entirely parked up streets. Generally yes, on my stretch of road there are crossing places - provided cars are not waiting in them for other cars to pass, or someone hasn?t just parked up there for a moment to load/unload/deliver/pick someone up etc. Crossing the street is better on our street than neighbouring streets, for example Derwent Grove - pretty much fully lined on both sides.

Yes, there is the yellow line space - this is for a care home where the residents have regular disability buses turning up to take them out - previous to this being put in a couple of years ago they regularly missed their outings because some residents were fearful of going too far to get on the bus and it was causing issues for the carers. This is often however still parked in despite the yellow line. The dropped curbs are often parked over or so close to them that one of my neighbours sometimes struggles to get her car out when she needs to. So on the rare occasion I got out in the car in the week, which I pretty much avoid doing and have to save those jobs for the weekend, I can and do unload on the yellow line, provided the bus doesn?t turn up and hoping it doesn?t turn up mid-unload. But then take the car almost to the other end of Melbourne Grove (down by LL) and drag the kids all the way back. It?s a great way to spend time and the kids really love waiting in the car whilst you unload then driving away from home, searching for a space and walking back home. Same for my sister-in-law if she turns up with the cousins on a Friday. She loves it at the end of a long journey.

This is on Melbourne though, I don?t know what people on Derwent do if they need to unload, block the street I presume. I had to do that once (before the yellow line was put in) 8 months pregnant to get some supplies to a workman - it took 2 minutes before a man got out of his car and verbally abused me in the street for daring to unload something to my home. That was a fun moment.

As for whether we?ll be able to park, you?re right, there is no guarantee and yes some spaces may be lost to yellow lines, tho for those neighbours who get blocked into their drives by people squeezing too big cars into too small spaces between dropped curbs I suspect they might have a view on whether those are bad or good, but also I understand the Council may reduce those to 1m where there is good reason so it might be worth explaining any concerns about these on your CPZ form however you vote. As it stands we can park at night and at the weekend (other than sometimes if there?s a big service at the church). The road is really quite pleasant on a Sunday. So my feeling is it will be ok. I was having this debate with a neighbour so thought I?d get some figures - having recalled that when planning permission went in for the new house on our street they did a parking stress survey. I checked it out today and it came out at 50.6% parking stress - taken between 1am and 5.30am on a Tuesday morning (on the basis it was likely to be mostly residents parked at that time). It was 2015 the survey took place but I don?t think we?ve seen a 50% increase in residents with cars since then. We?ve had a couple of new people perhaps in that time?

[Passiflora]

Article about the CPZ proposal in the Southwark News today and mentions comments on this forum.

[Rockets]

Galileo Wrote:

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

> Rockets

>

> Yes, of course I care about local businesses. I?m

> one of their customers too. I particularly care

> about the ones I know right by me, and they suffer

> from the same problem: their customers can?t park.

>

>

And are they supporting the CPZ? And what do they say to you when you say you are in favour? The traders are not worried for the sake of being worried and yes The Palmerston is closing for challenges unrelated to CPZs but this will fast become a trend and something we will have to become used to when the CPZ gets rolled out. People are resisting because they know once the council start they will not stop and can see their plans for what they really are.

[Sue]

Passiflora Wrote:

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

> Article about the CPZ proposal in the Southwark

> News today and mentions comments on this forum.

Which ones?

[TheArtfulDogger]

https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/exclusive-east-dulwich-parking-zone-plans-leave-residents-divided-and-traders-outraged/

[rendelharris]

Yay, in print at last! Not quite the slim Faber and Faber edition I was hoping for but...

[TheArtfulDogger]

I was confused by the line

"But those in favour include frustrated residents, who claim spaces are taken up by commuters travelling as from as far as Kent driving in to make use of spaces outside the overground station."

When did East Dulwich become part of the overground ?