CPZ: Proposed Controlled Parking in East Dulwich

[jimlad48]

MarkT Wrote:

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

> Sally Eva,

> to ask people to record a provisional alternative

> choice is totally reasonable, with the option to

> say 'no, I will not change my mind'

>

> That is not what jimlad has reported and is

> justifying.

>

> Jimlad, can you provide the actual quote, to

> support your statement?

While streets such as Denman Road and Talfourd Road were against the implementation of a parking zone, it would

be irresponsible to leave these streets out because these roads would then experience the displacement of

commuters and even higher demand for parking spaces. It is anticipated that within a year these roads would require

a parking zone.

Page 18 of the report - https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/2448/PDF%204_Peckham%20Road%20South%20report.pdf

[bil]

It?s so convenient to be able park outside your house or on the road where you live but council tax (and road tax)is the same for everyone in that area (within the relevant bands) and isn?t specific to the road you live on. I can see why people would only want to consider their own convenience but it?s fundamentally unfair to introduce CPZ?s unless everyone in that area gets the same access.

Most CPZ?s create a two tier system where people who live in the CPZ pay to park but people outside of the zone, especially those who live in the same postcode or borough and pay the same council tax, have to pay more to park in the CPZ. I don?t understand why I pay the same council tax as the people near Bellenden road or once the CPZ is introduced, Lordship lane but to go to a restaurant on these roads I have to pay more to park my electric car or scooter for 2 hours than they do to park their car for 1 week. Remember these parking charges affect scooters too. Kensington and Chelsea have a system where any resident who had a permit can park anywhere in the borough. That?s a fairer system.

It?s appalling to tell people they are lazy because they don?t walk or cycle to the shops. You never truly know the reasons, anxieties and situations as to why people make their choices.Some people with significant physical and mental impairments but not severe disability won?t qualify for a blue badge. I live on Dunstans road so for me it?s quick and easy to whizz down the hill to Lordship lane on my bike and it?s really nice in the sunshine but it?s a tough long long steep sweaty incline to get back home and harder when it?s raining or windy. I imagine it wouldn?t be easy to do with children or lots of shopping or with my dad. Frequent daily shopping might not be an option for everyone so they are more likely to use online options which will affect local business.

I have a number of friends that live in CPZ?s across London including Southwark. They?ve received parking tickets on a number of occasions because in the evening/night they?ve parked on the single yellow line when there wasn?t parking space in the bay near their house and then forgot to move it on time in morning when the CPZ restarted. This is more likely if you don?t use your car to commute to work. If the residents bays are full because there genuinely aren?t enough spaces for residents or they are full up during the hours that the CPZ is not in action then this could easily happen to anyone if they forget to set a reminder to get up to move the car.

I?d like to see Southwark working with TfL to improve public transport for all of us as well as encouraging and supporting greener options (more electric car charging points, secure bike parking for all bikes not just people who live on the road, secure moped parking etc). Maybe the money from the CPZ that they ?reinvest? could be used to introduce a free bike hire scheme for all residents. We don?t have Santander bikes despite being in zone 2.

[Rockets]

In 2015 Southwark published a report on the high streets in the area and it's study on Lordship Lane found that 22% of people on Lordship Lane travelled by car and that it was the second highest % for car arrival after Walworth Road.

More snippets from the report below:

Over half of the respondents (57%) on Lordship Lane lived in local postcodes, SE22 (29%),

which surrounds the high street, SE15 (17%) just to the north, and SE12 (11%) which is some

way away. The remainder lived in 29 further and widely dispersed postcodes, spread largely but

not exclusively from around South East London.

5.2 How did they get here?

The high street is well connected for buses travelling through South East London almost a third

had travelled to Lordship Lane by bus, ten points above the average for the survey. Rather

fewer had walked, which could indicate either greater distance or more shopping was involved.

Table 11 helps to confirm the picture of the typical visitor however, since almost a quarter had

arrived by car, twice the average and with the exception of Walworth road, the highest

proportion for any Southwark high street.

The picture is one of a local population using the centre because it is convenient and easy to

access, but with rather more than expected choosing to use a car to get there and back.

I do hope someone presents this report back to Southwark to ask them how the CPZ might impact these numbers and I cannot believe that given they conducted this research they have given little consideration to address the impact on the Lane form the CPZ (other than the ludicrous headline stat that people who walk to the high street spend 40% more than those who drive - which incidentally comes from a report commissioned by TFL on high-street improvements like pedestrianisation so seems to have been plucked at random to help justify their proposals):

Anyway, the council's report is below.

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/1922/2.2.11%20Lordship_Lane_Web_Report.pdf

[MarkT]

Jimlad, you are grossly misrepresenting the Peckham Road South Parking Study.

You asserted that "a couple of streets had said no, but the judgement was they would quickly request to be added to the CPZ once the wider zone was activated."

You are wrong in two ways:

1. Officers made no such assumption that people who voted against, would reverse their opinion. Your suggestion that they would do so and your justification of such an assumption was indeed outrageous. Actually the Report reveals that the question was actually asked:

"If you answered ?No? or ?Undecided? to question 4, would you change your mind if a parking zone was to be proposed in only part of the study area?" The Response: No 56% yes 6%

2. You refer me to page 18 of the Report and quote "streets such as Denman Road and Talfourd Road were against the implementation of a parking zone"

If you read the Executive summary, you will see that those two streets are named only as examples."Street-by-street analysis shows that nine streets support a parking zone and eight streets are against. Ainsworth Close was undecided and there was no response from Peckham High Street."

Actually therefore a minority of streets voted yes. The map in the Report shows this to be in a block. The will of that block and the officers driving the process was therefore imposed on the greater part of the area.

[Blameless]

Just leaving a link to the online survey. It's hard (impossible?) to find from the Southwark homepage.

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/parking-projects/east-dulwich-parking-study-and-healthier-streets-consultation

[jimlad48]

Mark - I think you are possibly starting to use some fairly strong language without good cause. So lets Look at what went on in this finding because there are some key things to remember.

I was heavily involved in the campaign to get a CPZ survey launched and it took several years of effort. The problem was that there had been a survey several years previously and the ?toastrack? narrowly voted no to one at the same time as other areas voted ?yes?. This led to significant parking pressure on the local streets because IIRC the original plan was to create one zone ? instead they split out the toastrack and didn?t put it in the zone.

It actually took a lot of persuasion to get this done, the Council is usually reluctant to rerun CPZ surveys quickly unless they are convinced the result will change. They aren?t cheap to do (ours cost ?30,000 to run), so they need real evidence to do so. We spent a year campaigning to get a large petition issued to the council to get them to agree to the survey again.

The outcome of the survey was that 57% of respondents voted for the CPZ on an 18% turnout. This may sound small, but by local government consultation standards, it was considered statistically high (e.g Lambeth put a CPZ in on the basis of a 5% turnout recently).

The roads that voted no are also worth understanding more about. Most of them are linked to large council estates anyway which have parking restrictions and relatively few car parking spaces. The key opposition came from a little clutch of 3 roads ? Talfourd and Denman ? these roads historically were always slightly quieter, although still busy, and felt at the time less affected by the parking than other roads.

The council noted (correctly in my view) that not only would the Toastrack CPZ come into force, but also another Peckham one was due to start too ? this would essentially squeeze these three roads into being a single area of zero parking restrictions between two CPZ.

What would have happened to Talfourd is that the displaced traffic (commuters and NHS workers mostly) would have been trying to park on those two streets ? which given how busy things were anyway, would have made it impossible for residents to park. So, the council decided to include them, because they expected to see demands for a CPZ within a year.

This is a very sensible decision -CPZ implementation always leads to displacement ? we got the displaced traffic from the nearby CPZ, Dog Kennel Hill got our displaced traffic, now DKH is live, the traffic is going to Dulwich. As one zone starts, demand for as new one quickly follows as people previously without parking problems experience them.

Given the likelihood of needing a CPZ, coupled with the cost of doing something that was blatantly obvious would be needed, the council decision makes perfect and very reasonable sense. Hence the Southwark note onPage 18 of the report:

"While streets such as Denman Road and Talfourd Road were against the implementation of a parking zone, it would be irresponsible to leave these streets out because these roads would then experience the displacement of commuters and even higher demand for parking spaces. It is anticipated that within a year these roads would require a parking zone".

It is also worth noting that this process is not generally about the will of streets, but the will of the majority. Unless there is a clear coherent street by street majority vote against, these streets will be included. This is not a one way process ? Southwark were happy to exclude the toastrack from the last consultation because the group of streets narrowly voted against it- so they do listen, and they do respect findings where it makes coherent sense to do so. But, where you have a smallish area, its really hard to do street by street exclusions because it makes life much harder for the residents if all the parking pressure falls on one road.

Ultimately this was an entirely democratic process where a majority vote won the day ? the council acted appropriately and the CPZ has made an immensely positive difference to our local area.

In Dulwich case, my thoughts would be that if people vote ?no? then be very careful what you wish for if some areas find themselves with a CPZ and others don?t. You will quickly find a previously quiet area coming under huge parking pressure ? and I suspect there will be local clamour for a CPZ very quickly.

[Hare]

?The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.?

Please, everyone who has so eloquently written on this and other threads, make your concerns known through the formal consultation process or you may find that your view has not been represented.

?The consultation will identify what appetite there is for controlled parking in different areas. The consultation area is quite big but the results will not be all-or-nothing. In other words, if controlled parking is popular in some areas but not in others then the former can have controlled parking and the latter not.?

Written on this Forum by Cllr James McAsh, 2nd Sept 18.

History suggests that voting silence will be taken as assent.

Thus, in the Dog Kennel Hill CPZ consultation, 14 of 29 streets voted yes but ten voted against; three streets were undecided and there was no response from two further streets. 10+3+10=23 which beats 14. Resulting recommendation: ?To implement a parking zone throughout the whole study area?.

In the so called ?toastrack? area, the decision was implemented on a 57% majority, but that was 57% on an 18% turnout - in other words, just 10.26% of the eligible responders. Yes, a blanket CPZ recommendation based on 10.26% returning a ?yes? vote.

If you want a CPZ in your street, but can see the logic of a different regime elsewhere, then say so and give your reasons. If you don?t want a CPZ anywhere, then say so and give your reasons. If you want blanket coverage, then say so and give your reasons. But just, don?t say it only on an online forum and not get round to formally submitting a response.

This broadcast has been made on behalf of the Street Party and is sponsored by the Edmund Burke Said It First campaign.

(Not really, I just made that up....)

[redjam]

I definitely don't want a CPZ anywhere and I will be saying so and giving my reasons. I think it'll be the death of Lordship Lane if people can't come in from elsewhere easily to visit it. Our transport links are just not that good and the free parking is one of the draws of the area. There's a reason why our high street is a nice little thriving oasis at the moment but business could so easily dry up if people can't get to it easily. I also object to the 'uglification' of the area with all the extra white lines, signs and parking meters, not to mention the extra expense and hassle of having to buy a permit and organise one every time a plumber or a friend comes to visit. People should be very careful what they wish for.

I speak as someone who lives just off North Cross Road and frequently has a hard time trying to find a parking place on my street. But I think it's a price worth paying to live near a thriving high street and long may it stay that way.

For what it's worth I also thoroughly object to the one-sided arguments and frankly unbelievable 'facts' included in that consultation. I'd have felt much less cross about the whole thing if Southwark had openly and evenhandedly presented both sets of arguments in their literature so we could make up our own minds fairly, but it seems very clear the council are pushing hard for a CPZ whether we like it or not. Please resist, people!

[rendelharris]

Hare Wrote:

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

> ?The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil

> is for good men to do nothing.?

> This broadcast has been made on behalf of the

> Street Party and is sponsored by the Edmund Burke

> Said It First campaign.

> (Not really, I just made that up....)

On a point of interest, Burke did not say it first or indeed at all, John Stuart Mill did; on a point of get a grip, if the council succeeds in getting you to pay ?2.50 a week to park your motor, that will not represent "the triumph of evil."

[mrwb]

Despite there myth busting leaflet it's obviously being done for the money.

Where would the money for "transport related improvements" "highway improvements" and "school crossing patrols" come from if not from the surplus on the parking account CPZ?

How are they paid for now without a CPZ?

Going to ask Southwark I think.

[EDWill]

Ignoring the rights and wrongs of a CPZ of cost etc, and looking just at the issue of Lordship Lane, surely a timed slot during the day of a couple hours of controlled parking (as in Herne Hill) should mostly address the reasons for getting a CPZ whilst minimising the impact on local businesses or am I missing something?

[Mscrawthew]

Anyone without a car has to get involved too.You will be affected by a CPZ as you will have to buy visitors permits for friends, loved ones and any workmen having to attend your property!

[jimlad48]

Heaveb forbid people have to pay ?2.50 for a parking space, or shudder have to use publuc transport...

[Eileen]

EDWill Wrote:

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

> Ignoring the rights and wrongs of a CPZ of cost

> etc, and looking just at the issue of Lordship

> Lane, surely a timed slot during the day of a

> couple hours of controlled parking (as in Herne

> Hill) should mostly address the reasons for

> getting a CPZ whilst minimising the impact on

> local businesses or am I missing something?

On the surface it does seem this would be an effective solution to stop all day commuter parking. But how can this be made to work when the commuters can pay on their phones?

Also would this two hour payment slot be an effective solution for people who come by car to the area here to work?

[tiddles]

I do not trust the council one jot. They will spend goodness knows what on

A consultation but will go ahead and do whatever they plan to do. End of

They dont give a fig for the genuine cocerns of people who work here - including teachers

Who are frequently lugging books and resourse materials to and fro.

Just wait and see...

[Galileo]

tiddles Wrote:

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

> I do not trust the council one jot. They will

> spend goodness knows what on

> A consultation but will go ahead and do whatever

> they plan to do. End of

> They dont give a fig for the genuine cocerns of

> people who work here - including teachers

> Who are frequently lugging books and resourse

> materials to and fro.

> Just wait and see...

If they are just going to ?do what they plan to do?, why didn?t they implement a CPZ following the last consultation?

[AylwardS]

A zone will be needed in the next few years so the consultation is your opportunity to influence how its set up. The person designing the scheme is unlikely to live in East Dulwich so tell them what the issues are here and there is a chance they can be addressed. When you fill in the consultation make your concerns / how you think a zone should operate clear. The reasons for parking differ so one restriction will not solve all issues. Tell the Council what your issue is - commuters, visitors to Lordship Lane, too many residential cars and how long you think a zone needs to operate in your area to address this and support local business.

As others have said PLEASE RESPOND TO THE CONSULTATION AS WELL AS THE THREADS ON HERE. The council needs to understand that this is not just another zone, which it might be to them, and how it will affect the local community.

If comments on here are right and the Council will just put the zone in then simply saying no, we shouldn?t have to pay for permits or its going to ruin Lordship Lane probably isn?t something they?ll take seriously. Suggestions to make the zone work for the local community could help For example question 10 in the consultation asks when the zone should operate. What do you think will work and why? A suggestion, not everyone will agree but why would what you think will work be the one that should be chosen?

Q10 If a parking zone was introduced, which of he following days would you like the parking zone to operate?

Part day, not lunchtime, to support local businesses. and give priority to residents. Commuters using the train station would be discouraged, residents and their visitors would have priority and residents would need fewer visitor permits

Naive maybe but it sometimes feels at work that I should be a mind reader as something I?ve not been told about changes how I would address something. Don?t let the Council have that excuse to fall back on.

[AylwardS]

Parking is always an emotive subject but its a fact of life and maybe the zone is a chance to make parking and driving locally, and the local air quality better? I?ve looked at the consultation documents and they are not perfect, but fairly reasonable given the situation I?ve seen in 20+years in East Dulwich.

A number of concerns and questions have been raised on here. The answers to them will provide valuable information to understand how the introduction of a zone will affect you and the main issue I see is the problem differs across the zone being consulted on and as a resident or business. It?s not going to be possible to solve all issues but make your views known or they can?t be taken into account.

As a resident in the Dog Kennel Hill zone for over 20 years we had 3 or 4 consultations before the zone was brought in so the Council do listen but they also take into account the change in the number of cars on the streets, and it has changed as comments have shown. The introduction of adjacent zones has a knock on effect, its just human nature.

Some thoughts on questions for the drop-in sessions /to consider when responding to the consultation.

Resident

Will there be one zone or multiple? Will residents be able to drive and park with their permit in permit holder only bays in the side streets / the paid bays or will they have to use paid bays? If so parking should be easier, if its not been considered it can be built in benefitting residents and businesses.

Will people be able to park all day by parking and calling to pay by phone for the charged hours and then leaving the car in the space? They can?t in the Dog Kennel Hill zone and deterring commuters is a common aim of zones so I?d be surprised, although its been steno her if the Council let that happen. If they can?t parking for visitors / those using the shops should be easier.

A zone will be needed in the next few years so the consultation is your opportunity to influence how its set up. The person designing the scheme is unlikely to live in East Dulwich so tell them what the issues are here and there is a chance they can be addressed. When you fill in the consultation make your concerns / how you think a zone should operate clear. The reasons for parking differ so one restriction will not solve all issues. Tell the Council what your issue is - commuters, visitors to Lordship Lane, too many residential cars and how long you think a zone needs to operate in your area to address this and support local business. Is the split of bays reasonable - it looks pretty reasonable to me in Melbourne Grove - Paid bays near the businesses, bays for permit holders / visitors near the houses. How does your road look?

Business

There will be an impact but what that will be I don?t know. There are two issues - those who use the businesses and those who commute and work in the businesses, local schools etc.

It may need a change to commuting but, I don?t know about others who?ve posted on this thread, I?ve used public transport to commute my whole time in London (over 20 years) apart from when I was part of a rota system and had to do a server backup that needed to be completed before the working day. A parking space was available to the person responsible on the day as public transport at that hour was considered an unreasonable option. Also my husband has lived in South London all his life and first ?commuted? to school and that still happens now from what i see on the bus and at Denmark Hill station. So personally concerns over commuting for business workers and no longer being able to park non-essential vehicles outside are non-concerns to me. It will be harder for some (teachers come to mind) but they won?t be the only teachers in London facing that and their employer may make arrangements.

A loss of footfall to businesses is a concern and something the zone needs to address. Businesses like residents will have different concerns - do people just pop in and buy a few items, or do they spend time on the premises - cafes or hairdressers will be different to shops. I see ESPH have a survey and it would seem like a good idea for businesses to be able to say they have surveyed their customers and the findings bear out / or not the 22% of visits by car that Southwark quote in the consultation pack. ESPH have certain concerns and the survey could be seen to be biased, maybe a slightly larger survey, again depending on the nature of the business and their concerns, might show concerns that the Council hasn?t considered and which they can then build into the design of the zone.

Survey for customers

Do you mind telling me how you travelled here today? Car, public transport, walk, cycle

If car Do you live within the zone being consulted on? Yes / No

If Yes Question to ask the Council to confirm permit holders throughout the zone will be able to park in permit bays in the side street with the expectation being parking will be easier

If No Would an increase in time (charged but availability expected to increase) be something you would use?

Half hour (free)

One hour (?1.33)

Two hours (4.08)

Three hours (?6.83)

If Yes What time did you visit?

If Yes Was parking easy

Questions businesses might want to ask

My customers come from across the zone will their permit allow them to park in permit holder bays in the side streets. If not where will the closest place to my business be that they can park?

Are the split of bays around my shop likely to cater to my customers - length of stay, available to permit holders (local customers), short stay (30 minutes and if longer needed that will now be possible), are the charges likely to deter my customers from shopping with me / staying or might they stay longer / not drive but still shop with me?

How would the different times the zone might operate affect my customers

Will the introduction of the zone affect how you use local businesses? Tell them, I?m sure they would like to know.

[ali2007]

I understand there?s a public meeting taking place next week (Tuesday?).

Does anyone have details?

On another note, i?m curious how many people shop in Brixton which DOES have a CPZ. I for one never go there because parking is costly / difficult. Though I know lots of people from Brixton & Herne Hill who often shop on Lordship Lane. If a CPZ is introduced I am certain it will kill off trade.

On a different note, though I still own a property in HH within the CPZ - I was not permitted a residents permit as it?s not my main residence. So even though I have a ?business? property, I have to pay on the meter every time I visit my business. Don?t make any assumptions about how this would roll out in ED.

Doing any building at your property will be a nightmare having to get relevant permits from the council....

I for one, do not want to invite traffic wardens who act like vultures onto our streets. I would rather pay an annual fee of ?125 NOT to have a CPZ ;-)

[Eileen]

Yes there is a public meeting for business-owners/traders on Tuesday 22 Jan at 14:00 to 15:30 at Goose Green Community Centre, 62A East Dulwich Road, London SE22 9AT.

The meeting will be chaired. The project manager will briefly present the proposals before taking questions.

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

ali2007 Wrote:

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

> I understand there?s a public meeting taking place

> next week (Tuesday?).

>

> Does anyone have details?

>

> On another note, i?m curious how many people shop

> in Brixton which DOES have a CPZ. I for one never

> go there because parking is costly / difficult.

> Though I know lots of people from Brixton & Herne

> Hill who often shop on Lordship Lane. If a CPZ is

> introduced I am certain it will kill off trade.

>

> On a different note, though I still own a property

> in HH within the CPZ - I was not permitted a

> residents permit as it?s not my main residence. So

> even though I have a ?business? property, I have

> to pay on the meter every time I visit my

> business. Don?t make any assumptions about how

> this would roll out in ED.

>

> Doing any building at your property will be a

> nightmare having to get relevant permits from the

> council....

>

> I for one, do not want to invite traffic wardens

> who act like vultures onto our streets. I would

> rather pay an annual fee of ?125 NOT to have a CPZ

> ;-)

[Eileen]

Yes there is a public meeting for business-owners/traders on Tuesday 22 Jan at 2pm to 3.30pm at Goose Green Centre, 62A East Dulwich Road, London SE22 9AT.

Here is the Council's info: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/eastdulwichparking/

ali2007 Wrote:

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

> I understand there?s a public meeting taking place

> next week (Tuesday?).

>

> Does anyone have details?

>

> On another note, i?m curious how many people shop

> in Brixton which DOES have a CPZ. I for one never

> go there because parking is costly / difficult.

> Though I know lots of people from Brixton & Herne

> Hill who often shop on Lordship Lane. If a CPZ is

> introduced I am certain it will kill off trade.

>

> On a different note, though I still own a property

> in HH within the CPZ - I was not permitted a

> residents permit as it?s not my main residence. So

> even though I have a ?business? property, I have

> to pay on the meter every time I visit my

> business. Don?t make any assumptions about how

> this would roll out in ED.

>

> Doing any building at your property will be a

> nightmare having to get relevant permits from the

> council....

>

> I for one, do not want to invite traffic wardens

> who act like vultures onto our streets. I would

> rather pay an annual fee of ?125 NOT to have a CPZ

> ;-)

[Jacqui5254]

Simply put...in order for people to have a perceived chance of parking nearer to 'their' home on 'their' street [even though we all pay Council Tax and no-one owns the roads], we all will have to live differently, and with much more stress.

Whether you have a car or not, you will require permits for every visitor to your home, whether its for 10 mins or for hours. These permits cost a significant amount of money. You will need to pay for parking in all the other roads covered by the CPZ as 'your' permit only covers your road and one or two next to it. For those of us who bought diesel cars because the govt advised it was best now face paying ?3.25 AN HOUR to park in a bay that, without the CPZ, is free.

Gone will be the days of browsing, window shopping, relaxing or taking your time.

You will have to get used to clock watching, being constantly aware of the need to pay, to mark time, to note time, to use visitor permits, deciding whether or not to give a visitor a permit if they only drop by for a few minutes so you stand guard at the window looking for wardens, the over-running of permit time, the forgetting, the standing in a shop or cafe for too long, the regular sight of more wardens, the anxiety, the annoyance when you have paid for a permit but still can't find a space, the cost, the lack of flexibility, the loss of casual shopping and the fact that parking times remains in your mind throughout when you are parked in a time-limited bay, the extra road markings, signs, changes, new lines to be aware of whilst you are driving. And then the ?85 fines because, although you now spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about parking, vouchers, wardens and time, we are all human and life does not fit into one hour slots.

Be careful what you wish for in wanting to park nearer to 'your' home. Think about the impact on others. Because once it is in place, there will be no going back.

[jimlad48]

Goodness me there is a lot of hyperbole on display about CPZ. Its an extremely straightforward process, which has minimal impact on people beyond asking for a small payment to park their car in the local area. Buying permits is easy and straightforward for visitors, and isn't difficult to do.

I think a lot of people here are scaremongering and pushing a narrative that those of us who are lucky enough to live in a Southwark run CPZ don't recognise.

[Orange owl]

God your a twat

[Jacqui5254]

jimlad48, I hope you weren't referring to my post when you said this.

I spent several years living in an area controlled by a CPZ and it was much worse than any 'hyperbole' you think is on display.

I would have so much more respect for you if you could recognise the wider implications of the choices people are making without consideration for what it means for everyone else,

And, for that matter, the whole of East Dulwich.

jimlad48 Wrote:

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

> Goodness me there is a lot of hyperbole on display

> about CPZ. Its an extremely straightforward

> process, which has minimal impact on people beyond

> asking for a small payment to park their car in

> the local area. Buying permits is easy and

> straightforward for visitors, and isn't difficult

> to do.

>

> I think a lot of people here are scaremongering

> and pushing a narrative that those of us who are

> lucky enough to live in a Southwark run CPZ don't

> recognise.