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

[Penguin68]

the poorer you are the less likely you are to drive.

A progressive society makes it easier for poor people to have good stuff, a regressive society makes it more difficult and fuels resentment between haves and have nots. And if cars aren't 'good stuff' - how come it's the wealthy with them and not the poor (except of course that many 'poor' people do have access to cars and vans, some for their work)?

Actually the younger (adult) you are the less likely you are to drive, particularly in London. The young find it easier to get about (they are fitter) and car insurance for the young can be prohibitive. For many young people owning a car is an expense to far. As long as they have a friend with a car who can drive them when necessary! When they start families is when they start to become car owners (often).

[Galileo]

?However for some people cycling/walking/scootering is simply not an option - those with nursery-aged children for eg.?

I have three kids in nursery and school - we use the pram, scooters and bikes to get to nursery and school - the full drop off/pick-up routine takes us an hour twice a day. This keeps us fit as a family (too many kids to go to or afford a gym) except for the fact the air we breath whilst on our run is foul. We could drive instead, it would be much quicker, but we refuse to because it?s not good for the world and we don?t get exercise that way.

[redpost]

These parking charges are great news for those of us who don't drive and have children.

[Jacqui5254]

Why?

[bels123]

5imon Wrote:

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

> Hi Bels123, thanks for your message.

> I think the point raised at the meeting was that

> if there were alternative - regular bus routes,

> safe cycle ways etc, then this would be the case.

> However for some people cycling/walking/scootering

> is simply not an option - those with nursery-aged

> children for eg.

>

> Regarding the 'poorer you are the less likely you

> are to drive' this may well be the case - but

> given lack of alternatives this effectively puts

> this particular park a little further out of reach

> for lower income families, which is a shame.

Agree more could be done to improve alternatives although as Gallileo pointed out there are ways and means even with busy lifestyles and 3 small children if you are committed to active travel and minimising the impact your journey has on the air we all breath. Perhaps if those campaigning against these charges put their efforts into lobbying for improvements to encourage this their concern for those who ?are unable to afford it? would seem less misplaced.

What are the 3 local schools being referred to? Dulwich Prep, Oakfield Prep and Dulwich College?

[redpost]

I'm just amazed that people drive to the park on a regular basis. We have so many different green spaces spread out and no-one is more than half a mile from a decent sized green space or park. This is SE london not lower manhattan, check out google maps at low zoom, there is green space literally everywhere.

[Rockets]

Yes I believe the schools are Oakfield and Dulwich Prep early years and the issue there is that the catchment areas are huge so many people drive and aren?t able to walk as Galileo suggests. But as far as this council is concerned charging people who send their children to private school is to be encouraged! I love the fact that the council says they would entertain not charging for parking if people could suggest other revenue generating opportunities....they have to be careful as when we all see the wastage they are so famed for this approach may backfire....like the 42k on the Love Dulwich lampposts....

[apbremer]

Or the plethora of pointless and hugely expensive road "improvements" which often seem to be rejigged after a year, at even more cost. There seems to be a bottomless pit of our money for these.

[Galileo]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Yes I believe the schools are Oakfield and Dulwich

> Prep early years and the issue there is that the

> catchment areas are huge so many people drive and

> aren?t able to walk as Galileo suggests. But as

> far as this council is concerned charging people

> who send their children to private school is to be

> encouraged! I love the fact that the council says

> they would entertain not charging for parking if

> people could suggest other revenue generating

> opportunities....they have to be careful as when

> we all see the wastage they are so famed for this

> approach may backfire....like the 42k on the Love

> Dulwich lampposts....

Are you arguing that a good reason for council car park not to impose parking charges is because it will put off parents from nearby private schools from driving their kids from far and wide and using the car parks for the local park in order to drop their kids at said schools?

There are lots of valid arguments as to why a park car park should not have charges, but I don?t think that is one of the better ones!

[bels123]

Interesting article - no such thing as free parking..?people who don't own cars pay for other peoples' parking. Every time you walk somewhere, or ride a bike, or take a bus, you're getting shafted

https://www.vox.com/2014/6/27/5849280/why-free-parking-is-bad-for-everyone

[Rockets]

Galileo,

No that is not what I am arguing. Re-read the feedback from the meeting that 5imon posted and I am sure you will see that is but one consideration and part of the broader opposition to the proposals. Whether you agree with private schools or not that community does use the Belair car park to safely drop their children at school and their voice needs to be heard and the fear with this council is that they will turn their noses up at anyone who they don't approve of - and we all know the Labour party's views on private schools. I understand that the councillor who attended was quite dismissive when these points were raised, seemingly letting their own prejudices cloud the discussion.

The displacement of parking from car parks like Belair to surrounding roads will not only create safety issues for the children being dropped off but also give the council more justification for CPZs in that area too.

I watched with interest the council meeting on the YouTube channel in relation to the CPZ and it is clear we are going to get CPZs borough-wide. The shills of the Vale Residents Association turned up and regurgitated the same TFL and council stated propaganda and got a rip-roaring round of applause, whilst the shopkeepers and the 10,000 people who support them in their quest to not have a CPZ got a muted response from the elected representatives. When Cllr Livingstone got up and said how things had improved greatly in his area since the implementation of the CPZ I think we all know which way things are going to go.

[redpost]

Well the private schools need to adopt a no car dropoff policy unless they can provide adequate parking of their own (which they can't), but that would involve them biasing admissions to the locality. Quentin from clapham simply must be dropped off and picked up in the au pairs land rover darling.

[singalto]

Redpost, I live near several state school including two primary school. I am horrified by how many parents drive their children to school, park anywhere that suits them. It?s not just a private school problem!

[Passiflora]

According to the public notices in yesterdays Southwark News this is going ahead and is ?2.00 payable using 'Pay by Phone' in Southwark Parks.

Lots more jargon but then says © to provide a solo motor cycle bay, in which solo motor cycles may be left without time limit or charge, in DULWICH PARK CAR PARK.

Seems strange as to why this would apply to just Dulwich Park or why they would be allowed to park there free at any time anyway.

[Rockets]

Repost, ha ha...nothing like a debate on private schools to bring out the prejudice in people...;-)

[AylwardS]

As previously said the official Traffic Management Consultation is out. It runs for a shorter period than the consultation the Council is / has been running since the beginning of April and when I went in today it looks different to what I recall seeing last time I looked - the questions look the same

The consultation - Parking Control Measures for carparks in parks can e found at https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/parking-control-measures-for-carparks-in-parks/

The Council consultation runs 1 April to 13 May, the formal TMO consultation runs 11 April to 6 May.

The TMO - Parks Parking (notice dated 11 April 2019) can be found in traffic-management-orders and the charge will be ?2 per hour at all times with free parking for disabled badge holders and solo motorcycles (in the specific bay).

I don?t choose to drive to the park so will not be directly affected but understand there may be circumstances that mean driving is required. Its not going to be possible to introduce charging and keep free parking for general access - well I can?t think of a solution that won?t cost lots. It have made a suggestion for how it should be possible for activities the parks (i.e. Parkrun or activities at the Francis Peek Centre) The Council also has pages on Health and Wellbeing so I played a few of their points back to them. If the charges will affect you do respond to the consultation and if you have suggestions or examples of particular groups who will be negatively affected include that in your response. The Council may be able to do something but hadn?t realised the introduction of charges would cause the issue.

I know there will be those that say its just moneymaking, and that is probably a big part of it, but I don?t drive to the park soI don?t know the likely implications of the introduction of charging and the people putting together the proposals will only have their own experience to go on. Can any of us say we understand what every park user needs?

[AylwardS]

I knew I?d seen something about consulting with regular park users. I found this in the decision back in February which gave the go ahead.

The consultation will include the following:

?

-? Engagement with specific user groups to gain an understanding of impact of proposed measures on those with disability and on regular users i.e. dog walkers to ensure these users have an opportunity to engage and provide their views.?

The decision by Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Culture, Leisure, Equalities and Communities 15/03/2019 http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50018970&Opt=0 should someone want to refer back to it.

[MarkT]

So they are going to consult "regular users i.e. dog walkers"

Is that really their exhaustive list of regular users?

Or, did they mean "e.g" dog walkers? If so, is that their best example?

[VerryBerry]

The concern for me is that the proposal hides another agenda, parking seems to be the preferred option (lazy) for the council. I suspect they really want the CPZ that will naturally occur as a result of the users being displaced. I live very close to peckham Rye and can see that the park is well used throughout the week, especially the weekends. We have been impacted by the councils displacement of residents in a nearby estate who have been forced to park onto the streets surrounding the area including parks of the park, they will be there for some time apparently. What happens when these charges come in and they are then forced to use the other roads further displacing the issue? I've observed the comments surrounding the CPZ in East Dulwich and heavy handed approach to impose a cpz that will ultimately impact business. Money is tight all over, the vanity project of the local 'gala" would have been a good way to raise funds but the amount being paid appears woefully inadequate for the use of the park. So if costs were really a factor I'd expect this, the fair and other commercial users to be charged more. Not many people drive to the park who live locally but of those who do (like myself) I'm sure we've good reason- time constraints, mobility, logistics etc). It seems weird that commercial users su as those running work out clubs throughout the year haven't been asked to contribute more. The park has been underfunded for a number of years with the playground in a poor state for ages it's a shame to implement something like this which will have wider implications for such a small gain.

[5imon]

A small bump for this thread - deadline for responses to the consultation is today, 13th May

The consultation is here:

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/parking-control-measures-for-carparks-in-parks/

and the feedback form is here:

https://forms.southwark.gov.uk/ShowForm.asp?fm_fid=1828

Pls provide feedback, either way.

Thanks.

[Jacqui5254]

Thanks for this Simon.

[spider69]

Does any one know what is happening regarding the possible parking charge?

Has it be scrapped or are they still figuring out if they can inforce it on people.

[singalto]

I went to Dulwich Park last Tuesday and there was no sign of paying machines..

[beansprout]

I was talking to a couple of people and still abit cloudy but not going to have meters, pay by phone!

[sally buying]

What happens if you dont have an up to date phone with all the bits or do not have a phone?