CPZ: Proposed Controlled Parking 'West Peckham' (north East Dulwich?

[James Barber]

Southwark Council has just issued a public consultation to install Controlled Parking Zone bounded by Grove Vale, East Dulwich Road, Fenwick Road, Chadwick Road, railway line.

To respond to the consultation, deadline 31 January, please go here - https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/peckhamwestparking/

Streets included are:

Adys Road

Amott Road

Avondale Road

Bellenden Road

Besant Place

Chadwick Road

Choumert Road

Copleston Road

Danby Street

East Dulwich Road

Everthorpe Road

Fenwick Grove

Fenwick Road

Gowlett Road

Grove Vale

Hayes Grove

Howden Street

Keston Road

Maxted Road

Marseden Road

Muschamp Road

Nutbrook Street

Oglander Road

Ondine Road

Oxenford Sreet

Soames Street

Waghorn Street

Wingfield Street

[spider69]

For your information Chadwick Road is already a CPZ, it is part of the DHK CPZ.

[James Barber]

The map clearly shows Chadwick Road houses on the south side, from the railway line east, included in this new proposed CPZ. So it may be they will be able to obtain CPZ permit for this proposed new zone but be barred from using it outside their home. Clearly worth responding to the consultation to ensure this potential problem is fully addressed.

[23e Heure]

Hinckley Road is missing from your list, James

[missyelliott]

Be interesting to hear others thoughts on the proposed community run 'Parklets'

[Soylent Green]

Reluctantly, I have to consent to this CPZ. Since the DKH CPZ was introduced, this area has become so congested with displaced vehicles. The opening of the new Charter ED school will mean more cars parked around here during the day (teachers and other school staff who commute by car). We need to force the question, how much do I need this car/car journey? and encourage people to use alternative forms of transport. I know the low emissions zone will do this, but CPZs can help stagger this impact. Moreover the 75% discount on hybrids' permits, will quicken the conversion to low emission vehicles in the area. Finally, I know most of the income from CPZs will be spent managing them, but this will create jobs which is a good thing, and any residual income can be used in other cash strapped areas of council expenditure, which are suffering from never ending Tory cuts.

[alex_b]

It looks like the quietway plans that everyone objected to are baked in. I?m sure this ?consultation? will equally take residents? views into account. The ?parklet? on Adys Rd is particularly moronic given the volume of HGV traffic using the road as a rat run.

[missyelliott]

I know. I was chatting to a friend about the Adys Road 'parklets'. She put it very well - I don't want to eat Tacos in a parking bay I want to be able to park in it!. A nice idea in theory put community run and in busy areas? I can't see that being popular or practical

[rollflick]

Worth remembering there are multiple reasons for parklets.

For those with walking difficulties, it's really reassuring to have a place to stop and rest. I only really appreciated this when I couldn't walk far recovering from an injury last year. Recent equality and public health laws mean the council now needs to put more seats into streets.

Breaking up the wall of metal (parked cars) calms traffic and makes streets easier to cross on foot. Okay that particular reason isn't relevant on Adys Road, maybe there it's something to do with the school and changing travel behaviour around it or providing a nicer place for parents to wait for their kids.

Also the CPZ area has lost many trees recently and new rules mean that trees of similar size can only be replanted in bigger tree pits, i.e. taking up some carriageway. Maximising 'tree canopy' area reduces summer heat and can help tackle air pollution. There's already a lack of green space in much of this area, see attached map from Southwark's Open Space Strategy. Yes the parklets would be a small start but better to test them small scale while seeing how much space the CPZ frees up.

While they are new in Southwark, parklets have already popped up in other boroughs, maybe the council could gather info about what has and hasn't worked elsewhere?

[James Barber]

Hi Soylent Green,

The cost of running Controlled Parking Zones is clearly significantly less than the ?125/year permit charge. I say this because for council housing estates with controlled parking the first vehicle permit is charged at ?0, replacing a lost or stolen permit ?10 - https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/parking-permits/estate-permits/resident-permits.

As Housing Revenue Account are not allowed to trade at a profit these costs more accurately reflect the real cost of providing parking permits.

The public highway permit charge at ?125 is a political decision. The profits are used to subsidise the Transport Budget.

My lot when running the council charged ?99.

[doogsey]

Thanks James for providing a link to the consultation. I've submitted my feedback.

[ED_moots]

May I add there's a further consultation for Grove Vale / Lordship Lane / East Dulwich Road being undertaken. Image of area attached.

Link to the consultation here: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/eastdulwichparking/

We've had nothing through the post yet and the deadline is 31st January. If you live on the roads affected please take the time to respond.

James, would you mind amending the title of this thread to encompass this further consultation.

I'm probably a bit cynical but there seems to be some divide and conquer tactics going on with Southwark.

[fishbiscuits]

CPZ..

Good for drivers, who will almost certainly find it easier to park.

Bad for non-drivers, who will have extra hassle and cost whenever visitors and tradesmen need to park.

Very very bad for anyone having building work, who will have to pay Southwark's extortionate cost for suspending a parking bay if they need a skip.

Overall I'm in favour, but can understand the reservations.

[Sally Eva]

OTOH the air will be cleaner, the environment will be quieter and the streets will be safer with fewer cars driving round in circles looking for parking spots.

The roads on the way to free parking also benefit because they are not clogged up with traffic heading for a free parking spot.

[alex_b]

rollflick Wrote:

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

> Breaking up the wall of metal (parked cars) calms

> traffic and makes streets easier to cross on foot.

Is there any evidence for this? Anecdotally, the addition of the double yellows at the corner of Nutbrook and Adys has led to drivers trying to turn at higher speeds and increased the number of bollard collisions. I really worry that the additional double yellows proposed in this scheme will encourage higher speeds and larger vehicles.

[MarkT]

Alex_b,

Your concern of higher speeds is confirmed by Southwark Council's Streetscape Design Manual, which states that research shows that increased sightlines lead to increased speed. Also the Council's reports on previous CPZ's state that a benefit of a CPZ is improved traffic flow through the area. That implies more speed and an invitation to rat running.

This is an obvious result of the extended double yellow lines at junctions and dropped kerbs. I have particular concerns about the extended lines across dropped kerbs as it encourages greater speed crossing pavements, with a particular risk to small children.

MarkT

[rendelharris]

MarkT Wrote:

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

> Your concern of higher speeds is confirmed by

> Southwark Council's Streetscape Design Manual,

> which states that research shows that increased

> sightlines lead to increased speed.

On what page does it say that please Mark? I can't see it.

[MarkT]

Rendelharris

I think it occurs in the opening paragraphs of several sections eg

DS 114 1.2.b. "Stopping distances vary with vehicle type and speed. However, research now suggests that providing excessive visibility can also introduce dangers as it may increase the speed that people drive or ride at."

I noted this some while ago, so I was citing it from memory, my apologies if I have overstated the concern.

MarkT

[trinidad]

Im on copleston road, I like the idea of the parklets, but not keen on the CPZ, is there an option for this on the questionnaire? also, does anyone know how this is being funded, and by how much?

[rendelharris]

MarkT Wrote:

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

> Rendelharris

> I think it occurs in the opening paragraphs of

> several sections eg

> DS 114 1.2.b. "Stopping distances vary with

> vehicle type and speed. However, research now

> suggests that providing excessive visibility can

> also introduce dangers as it may increase the

> speed that people drive or ride at."

>

> I noted this some while ago, so I was citing it

> from memory, my apologies if I have overstated the

> concern.

> MarkT

Thanks - can't actually find any phrases like that in the current Streetscape Design Manual, searches for any of the keywords in your phrase show nothing.

[Sally Eva]

MarkT Wrote:

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

> Rendelharris

> I think it occurs in the opening paragraphs of

> several sections eg

> DS 114 1.2.b. "Stopping distances vary with

> vehicle type and speed. However, research now

> suggests that providing excessive visibility can

> also introduce dangers as it may increase the

> speed that people drive or ride at."

>

> I noted this some while ago, so I was citing it

> from memory, my apologies if I have overstated the

> concern.

> MarkT

I don't think this is demonstrating the point you are trying to make. The phrase used is "excessive visibility" which is said to cause increased speed. This would make sense as part of a debate on whether the double yellow lines should be 10m (the distance advised in the Highway Code) or 7.5m. The council is proposing 7.5m. There is no reason to believe that it considers 7.5m to be "excessive". The SSDM does not say that 7.5m will increase speeding.

The bollards are there to protect pedestrians against drivers who are unable to control their vehicles on junctions. I agree that this must be a concern. A point-closure would seem a better way of dealing with drivers who are unable to adapt their driving to the road conditions. Plainly making it harder to see where they are going is unlikely to improve their skills.

[MarkT]

Well it was certainly there before.

I quoted it in other threads on this forum to argue against extended double yellow lines on dropped kerbs and at junctions.

Why would they delete such a convenient counter argument?

MarkT

[Sally Eva]

If you believe that the document has been modified to avoid embarrassment, you can ask for previous published versions via a Freedom of Information Request.

[Eileen]

This message is for people who live in Nutbrook Street - what do you think of the proposals for our street?

I frequently can't find a place to park in the evenings long after a CPZ would have ended. Could this CPZ solve that?

To anyone else - do you have any experience of CPZ's solving car parking scarcity after 6.30pm?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Look, it's pretty clear that the council want controlled parking across the borough. It's been pretty clear for a number of years now and one way or another, they are going to push it through eventually. It's easier to make private transport more difficult than it is to increase and improve the alternatives.