Council parks to charge ?2ph parking fee from 1 April

[dbboy]

And note the date it's due to be implemented on. 1st April?????

[johnie]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Equally it does seem odd that

> quite so many drive to a park. especially when

> quite so many bus routes pass so close to Dulwich

> and Peckham Rye parks giving many real public

> transport options in addition to walking and

> cycling.

Buses for many are not free, so a trip to the park could cost a few quid.

[Sally Eva]

Buses are not free and neither are cars.

People who own cars and use them for non-essential journeys impose a cost in pollution, road noise and danger on the rest of society.

There seems to be no reason why people who decide to take their pollution, road noise and danger into parks should be able to do that without paying.

[rupert james]

Why are you now deciding what is an essential or non essential journey. Surely that is up to the person making the journey. You and others would not know the reason.

When I last checked cars cannot drive in or around Dulwich Park, except for a few disabled people, the rest go from the main road to a car park and then not moving, hardly taking pollution, road noise and danger into the park.

[first mate]

I find the 'environment-saving' car park charges slightly at odds with Council moves to hire the park out for private events, which arguably damage sections of the park and wildlife. I also wonder about pollution measurements at those events? All those large vehicles.

One also senses that those with needs that don't fit into the council and its supporters agenda are viewed as necessary collateral damage.

[Sally Eva]

rupert james Wrote:

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

> Why are you now deciding what is an essential or

> non essential journey. Surely that is up to the

> person making the journey. You and others would

> not know the reason.

>

> When I last checked cars cannot drive in or around

> Dulwich Park, except for a few disabled people,

> the rest go from the main road to a car park and

> then not moving, hardly taking pollution, road

> noise and danger into the park.

I think the essential/non-essential distinction is quite objective. Essential journeys might be to buy food, as part of your work, to visit the doctor. In an emergency to take someone else to the doctor or help a neighbour.

Inessential journeys might be to take the dog to the park, to take the children to the playground, to visit the park cafes, to have a picnic. These are enjoyable and satisfying activities but not essential.

[rupert james]

In your mind.

[first mate]

I agree with the way you qualify your examples of non-essential journeys with a 'might' because some of those very same journeys might also be essential for a proportion of the population.

[James Barber]

Hi rupert,

But those vehicles journeys are made through streets leaving air pollution outside the parks.

The council report states the charge is to cover the cost of providing parking. 50% of Southwark homes have no access to cars and therefore currently subsiding costs to provide vehicle parking.

But ?2ph is clearly significantly higher than the actual costs of providing the car parking even allowing for the lost utility of land occupied by stationary vehicles.

I wish the plan was to use surpluses for local parks. At least park users paying such a charge would know it was beginning an uplift to parks. I also think the charge too high but understand Labour politicians not wanting to have to come back every year to increase it. The next increase would be after the next local election in 2022/3.

[rupert james]

James Barber

I dont think I have read such rubbish.

How can this charge cover the cost of providing parking. The parking in Dulwich Park in its current form has been there since the beginning of time. It does not have a cost. It has been establish from years ago and has not been improved. It works.

"But those vehicles journeys are made through streets leaving air pollution outside the parks."

If this is the case why has Champion Hill been closed and traffic pushed through other streets.When there is no published results regarding pollution? Perhaps you could explain.

Why not ban all vehicles from the road. and make everyone walk.

"50% of Southwark homes have no access to cars and therefore currently subsiding costs to provide vehicle parking."

How?

Perhaps you should go back and read the post by spider69 earlier today, this is the true result and how it effects real people.

Its true the area is becoming a middle class ghetto when only the well off will be welcome in the park.

A question, will park staff that park in the carpark be charged this ?2 ph?

[James Barber]

Hi rupert,

I'm not asserting this charge covers the cost of providing the parking - I've explicitly said it is way more than the cost incurred.

What I've stated is the current council administrations position.

The maintenance of the parks car parks is paid from from general council revenues. So those with and without cars are paying for that maintenance.

But half the population have no access to cars. So the impact will be a proportion of the half who have enough money or inclination to own and run cars and drive them to parks.

Regarding park staff. I don't know if they'll be charged. Perhaps worth asking one of the Labour councillors introducing this charge.

[Ampersand]

Genuinely encouraged by the altruistic responses to this thread about concern for people on lower incomes and their access to the green spaces in the borough. I can?t afford to own a car so do pm me about when you are available to pick me up and give me a lift to my local park.

[womanofdulwich]

Are they going to make more places to park a bike in Dulwich Park?

[mrwb]

Ampersand Wrote:

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

> Genuinely encouraged by the altruistic responses

> to this thread about concern for people on lower

> incomes and their access to the green spaces in

> the borough. I can?t afford to own a car so do pm

> me about when you are available to pick me up and

> give me a lift to my local park.

Maybe Southwark council could use the parking fees to create an app to do just that? Southwark park ride-sharing app?

[Glemham]

Thank you James for posting this. It would be helpful to get this information from current councillors for the areas affected. I agree that there is likely to be a knock-on effect on parking in residential roads close to the parks particularly at weekends which CPZs don?t cover.

[Blah Blah]

As others have pointed out, Southwark council has had to manage the impact of central government funding cuts for 8 years now. Council surpluses were finally drained about three years ago I think. So unless we want cuts to adult and child social care and other key front line services the council have no choice but to look for other revenue streams. If it is not parking it will be something else sadly.

[Zig-Zag]

It's an absurd argument so say that as 50% don't have a car in Southwark, it's unfair for them to be paying some Council tax towards car users. I don't have children but am paying for schools and maternity care etc...and am very happy to do so!

[Growlybear]

Like everyone else, I would always prefer to park anywhere free of charge, but if you can afford to maintain, tax, and insure a car, then surely it's not impossible to find the money to pay for parking when you use one of the parks?

[Jacqui5254]

Growlybear Wrote:

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

> Like everyone else, I would always prefer to park

> anywhere free of charge, but if you can afford to

> maintain, tax, and insure a car, then surely it's

> not impossible to find the money to pay for

> parking when you use one of the parks?

How on earth can you make a judgement on what people can and cannot afford?

As you say, car owners have to buy, maintain, tax and insure a car.

Add on the cost of petrol,extra penalties for diesel car parking [diesel cars bought on the advice of the government as being the smart and responsible choice], congestion charges, ULEZ penalties, etc.

A lot of people need to use a car, and a lot of people are struggling financially.

[James Barber]

Hi Blah Blah,

Central government have been reducing the central government part of local councils funding for the last 16 years to my knowledge.

Hi Jacqui5154,

Owning and running a car is now the cheapest it has been for a couple of decades. Car ownership costs have not risen with inflation. Taxation on fuel has been frozen for many years.

Yes, sadly many do need a car, we've yet to redesign our society to far Climate Change. I don't like the detail of what's proposed or the pricing but doing nothing generally to fight Climate Change urgency isn't an option.

[Blah Blah]

I think you need to take a look at the trajectory that car insurance has taken James. Owning a car is not as cheap as you might think.

And seeing as you can never resist playing party politics, from 2010 to 2020, councils will have lost 60p out of every ?1 the Government had provided for services beforehand. So spare us the nonsense that cuts were part of a trajectory begun by a Labour government. They were nothing like the cuts your party and the Tories have inflicted since 2010 - as you well know.

[James Barber]

hi blah blah,

WE own a car. We've had to replace it due to the ULEZ as it was a 2012 diesel. We understand the cost of motoring on a persona level and reading various report societal level. We are trying to change our habits but it isn't always easy to change.

This RAC chart is telling on this issue - https://www.racfoundation.org/data/cost-of-motoring-index

[MarkT]

Are the driveways and car parks, located within the parks, part of the Council highways?

If they are part of the parks, surely any money raised can and should be spent on parks.

If they are part of the highways network any money raised must be spent only on highways, but there is no obligation for the Council to make a profit on this. It is the Council's choice to milk the parks. Across the Borough, the start-up costs will be ?50.5K, income per annum ?200k.

If there are particular problems eg the Report mentions commuters (is there any evidence of this?) then the charges could operate for a couple of hours in the day.

But If this is a highways issue. why is it being decided by the Cabinet member for Culture, Leisure, Equalities and Communities? Whether or not it comes under their remit, Deputy Leader Councillor Rebecca Lury and Fiona Dean, Director of Leisure, should be ashamed of themselves.

[James Barber]

This is all within the Parks department. And I agree MarkT, the cost and profit should at least be kept within parks.

[MarkT]

Thanks James, I see that Paragraph 3 of the report states it refers to:

"parks in the borough of which six have existing off-street carparks within their boundary". So yes it is parks.

The speed of this is outrageous. Cabinet report dated 25th February to be implemented 1st April. And the Council website states that the Decision may be taken any time after 5th March. That's one week to inform that list of consultees, by the way ignoring the public in general, then those consultee organisations have to organise meetings or whatever to form a view and respond.

To be implemented by 1st April they no doubt have contracts already signed for the works.