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

[Charles Notice]

With regard to your comment

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

Have other people who use Dulwich Park noticed that Conway is now going round re-doing the kerb stones to allow wheel chair access. This was something people raised at the time of the works. Why no access.

As the original contractors were not Conway why could these works not have been done as part of the original works?

If you are fitting and laying new pavements and kerb stones, do you really need another contractor to do additional works?

Southwark say they have no money but the way they work does not make sense.

Using up funds before the end of the financial year or kids in charge who do not have a clue about commercial contracts.

[MarkT]

Here's a page from Southwark's Open Space Strategy, a map of distances from the nearest open space. White means a long way away. See the white space in the middle - that is East Dulwich

[Metallic]

Except it has been announced the Head Gardener of Dulwich Park is not being replaced.

[MarkT]

I sent the following a couple of weeks ago to the Decision Maker, Councillor Rebecca Lury, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for culture, leisure, equalities, and communities. I copied it to Richard Livingstone who decides on CPZ's and to all our Dulwich Community Councillors.

MarkT

An open letter in response to charge for car parking within Southwark parks

I am concerned about the proposal to charge for carparking in Southwark parks, particularly in relation to my two nearest parks, Peckham Rye and Dulwich.

You state that the car parks provide a service for those who ?choose to drive?. The Report gives no consideration of ?need to drive? except forTo Councillor Rebecca Lury, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for culture, leisure, equalities, and communities, Blue Badge holders. For some with disabilities who do not qualify for a Blue Badge, distance from home to the park might be a key consideration. In your Community Impact Statement you state there will be no disproportionate affect on any community group, but you seem not to have considered Open Space Deprivation.

I attach a screen shot of the map on page 44 of Southwark?s Open Space Strategy, showing distances from the nearest open space, with large areas of Open Space Deprivation in the South of the Borough, in particular the densely populated part of East Dulwich which is equally badly served by Peckham Rye and Dulwich Park.

I see no mention in the Report of organised activities in the parks. In this respect my local parks may be no different from others across the Borough. In Peckham Rye and Dulwich Park, large numbers of young people routinely take part in organised sports. Neither does your Report mention that the Dulwich carpark directly serves the Francis Peek Community Centre with its range of community activities. Organisers of these activities need to bring equipment and therefore need to drive.

Typically, any specific activity will have a far larger catchment area than a generic green space. Leaders and participants therefore need to travel, and some need to come by car. Community Centres form a borough-wide network. These community activities are very sensitive to cost and Community centres have to keep their charges low. Additional costs of parking might make the difference in the viability of some activities. Again, I think you need to review your Community Impact Statement.

I understand from the Report that the proposal relates only to ?off-street? car parks, and only inside the parks ?within their boundary?, and therefore comes within your remit for a Single Member Decision.

I am surprised, therefore that under Key Issues ? Rationale, the Report states that revenue made from the introduced parking charges can be re-invested in ?Highways maintenance and road improvements projects?, while the possibility of using the funding for the parks is mentioned later in the Report as a Community Impact afterthought, that the parking charge ?could potentially serve as an addition stream of revenue for use for the betterment of the parks.? As the profit from this proposal will be more than ?150,000 per annum, I would hope that a benefit to the parks and their associated activities would be higher on your agenda.

This Report acknowledges the probable result of this proposal of increased parking pressure for residents in nearby streets. Such repercussions cut both ways. The proposal for Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ) in East Dulwich is also a Single Member Decision, but proposes specific parking bays directly associated with a range of community facilities, which surely come under your remit. I ask you to look closely at those CPZ plans and consider the risk they pose to the provision of services by those facilities.

According to National Statistics, local car ownership is 0.71 cars per household, and streets are currently parked to comfortable capacity by residents while accommodating the necessary parking for community facilities. The proposal involves the loss of many parking spaces to double yellow lines, particularly notable in the streets surrounding the East Dulwich Community Centre. The resulting parking space will be insufficient for the current resident owned cars and planners of the CPZ have stated that Parking will be displaced.

The bays to be placed in front of community facilities will be available for payment, but also will be open to residents. The scheme therefore will allow residents to block the parking spaces in front of every community facility. Indeed, since the CPZ planners have not denied that they might sell more Resident Permits than there are spaces available, residents may have no alternative but to occupy all the spaces intended for community facilities. For those who need to drive to a community building, once the CPZ is in place, even if they are able to pay, they will not be able park anywhere in the vicinity.

This Report states that charging is an effective way of reducing demand for parking spaces. Perhaps so, but it discriminates only according to ability and willingness to pay. It will favour the lifestyle-drivers and will likely force out the most financially vulnerable services in our community centres and reduce access to our parks to those who most need it.

The first point in your Report as the ?Rationale? is that ?Off-street car parking within our parks provides a small but appreciated service to the low proportion of visitors who choose to drive by car to our parks.? I am sure you intend that as a simple statement of fact. It does however read more like an intention that your plans will favour a lifestyle-driver elite.

[Henry_17]

Great, now i must pay ?6 to run the Saturday 5k

[Sally Eva]

Or you could go on the bus. Four bus routes run up the west side of the Rye and two run up the east side. The 78 and the P12 run to the northern tip.

If you are a runner then you might consider it within walking distance of four railway stations: in distance order nearest first Peckham Rye, Nunhead, East Dulwich and Honor Oak.

Henry_17 Wrote:

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

> Great, now i must pay ?6 to run the Saturday 5k

[goldilocks]

a 5k takes you 3 hours???

Henry_17 Wrote:

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

> Great, now i must pay ?6 to run the Saturday 5k

[Penguin68]

a 5k takes you 3 hours???

Presumably includes time to arrive, change, warm up, get to the start position and run through the start line, finish, warm down, change, perhaps meet up with fellow athletes...

[Upwind]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> If you are local, your children are school age and

> have no disabilities

>

> If you have to walk more than 20-25 minutes,

> particularly if one child is in a push chair (even

> if another is school age) then you will not feel

> that much like 'enjoying' the park when you get

> there, particularly with the walk back ahead of

> you. Neither will your children. Mind you, as a

> policy it will keep out those awful extended

> families, people with dogs, the elderly, all those

> ghastly people who cannot afford to live nice and

> close (within easy walking distance from a park).

> Effectively keeping out the hoi polloi (anyone who

> can't readily afford the parking fee, even) is a

> wonderful policy for the council to pursue. It

> will be Dulwich parks for Dulwich people. It will

> make the parks so much more private for those with

> adjacent houses. And once the parks are unused

> enough, well we can get rid of them.

I believe there are regular buses serving our parks, or perhaps people could cycle?

I am one of the hoi polloi who couldn't or wouldn't pay the parking fees. In fact I made a conscious decision over ten years ago not to own a car, despite having two young children. The money I saved by doing that is spent on public transport, the occasional cab fare and the even more occasional hire of a car when we really need one. As a consequence, we are all much healthier and fitter, with the kids now accomplished cyclists and happy to walk a mile or two to get somewhere.

Yes, it may make some people decide to stay away from Dulwich Park in favour of their closer local park. Good, especially on those busy summer weekends when the car park resembles a major junction in Rome during the rush hour!

Too many people in this area drive purely for the convenience of it. This policy will weed a few of them out and generate some much needed revenue for the council.

[MarkT]

The consultation has been extended till 13th May.

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=6725

The consultation will include - 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."

Note, not "e.g. dog walkers" but i.e. dog walkers". I think anybody who uses the Francis Peek Centre or whose children play football or other organised activities in our local parks might need to respond. Also anybody who has difficulty walking, as East Dulwich is prominent on the Council's map of "Open Space Deprivation" which shows distances from the nearest park. The Decision Maker is:

Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Culture, Leisure,

Equalities and Communities ? Councillor Rebecca Lury

To deputise for the Leader of the Council in his absence by representing the borough

at external events, within the council and when necessary chairing cabinet.

To improve the council?s engagement with all Southwark?s communities, especially

those who are hardest to reach. To be responsible for strengthening the voluntary

and community sector, supporting volunteering across the borough.

To promote leisure and sport in the borough and increase the quality of the

borough?s parks and green spaces. With the Cabinet Member for Community Safety

and Public Health to increase physical activity and resident use of all our park and

leisure spaces.

To champion equality and diversity across the borough and be a champion for

Southwark?s varied and diverse communities.

The cabinet member will have particular responsibility for:

 strengthening and working with Southwark?s voluntary and community sector

 community councils and community engagement

 relationships with faith communities

 Southwark diversity standard

 equalities and equal opportunities

 volunteering and volunteer champions

 civic issues

 cultural strategy

 libraries

 events

 free theatre visits for primary children

 working with organisations in the borough?s thriving culture communities

 increasing access to arts and culture including for vulnerable groups

 parks

 trees

 biodiversity

 performance of the council?s leisure contractor

 leisure investment

 working with grassroots leisure communities

 play and leisure activities for young people

 swimming and gym use

 working with grassroots sport communities

 promoting sport and increasing physical activity

 youth centres.

Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Public Health ? Council

I don't see i.e. providing car parking for dog walkers in that job description.

MarkT

[TheArtfulDogger]

It's all about the money

Reading the document http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s80898/Report%20-%20Car%20parking%20charges%20in%20parks.pdf

It covers 6 parks with car parking facilities

6. Responsibility for the management and maintenance of these car parks rests with the Environment and Leisure Department. The maintenance costs are included within the Grounds Maintenance contract and cannot be specifically identified. However, for the purposes of this report, an assessment has been carried out which estimates that the total cost of the carparks is ?42,000 per annum.

.....

29. The estimated annual parking charge income for 2019-20 is necessarily an estimate and past experience has shown that the figure could change based on external variables that the council cannot control. The surplus planned is modest and allows for a margin of an error so that if the income is less than anticipated it will not result in a net deficit.

30. It is estimated that this exercise will generate at least ?200k of net income in Parks and Leisure Division and this is being incorporated in the council?s budget setting process for 2019/20.

31. Staffing and any other future maintenance costs connected with of the car parks parking will be contained within existing Parks and Leisure Division revenue budgets

However

18. There is a risk that new restrictions may cause parking to be displaced and, indirectly, have an adverse impact upon road users and neighbouring properties at that location. However this cannot be entirely pre-empted until the recommendations have been implemented and observed.

Thetefore they expect to make over ?200 thousand a year from the parking charges plus remove the ?42 thousand a year they currently spend on car parks but to do this they would have to guarantee cars park in the parks and not in the surrounding streets ... I wonder how they can do that ....

IMHO ?42 thousand a year spread amongst all council tax payers is pennies each and hardly a justification to make car users pay and remove the cost from non car users , especially as we all know council tax bills go up but never down so non car users won't see that saving in their annual bill

Whilst they put a thin veneer over it all talking about environmental impact, they are still planning for over 100,000 hours of paid parking each year, if they really wanted environmental changes then they would make it restricted to disabled users and electric cars only

[Rockets]

The Friends of Belair Park have organised a meeting with Southwark Council to dispute the parking charges.

If you want to make your voice heard the meeting will take place on Saturday 30th March 2019 at 2.30pm at Belair Recreation Rooms (Gallery Road). Friends of Belair are encouraging as many people as possible to attend.

[Penguin68]

Does anyone know whether these charges actually have been introduced yet?

[singalto]

I walked through Dulwich park on Friday afternoon and saw no sign of payment machines.

[Penguin68]

Thank you

[MarkT]

The consultation has been extended, to 6 weeks from today, so cannot be implemented yet.

I think that wherever parking charges are being introduced in Southwark, payment is by phone only so there will be no payment machines, but there will be signs giving instructions for payment.

[5imon]

All -

On Saturday I attended the meeting with Southwark Council, organised by the Friends of Belair Park.

Councillor Andy Simmons attended from Southwark. There were around 30-40 people in attendance.

I'm going to keep the following to 'the facts' of what I recall/noted from the meeting. Opinions expressed are not my own etc. If you also attended pls feel free to add to the below.

Note that although the meeting touched on the scheme as it would apply to all Southwark parks, there was a specific focus on Belair park, for obvious reasons.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

After an introduction by the Chair of Friends, Andy introduced himself and outlined the rationale for the parking charges. This was fairly obvious - Southwark council have a budget hole and are turning over every available stone to generate revenue. Andy acknowledged this is an emotive and controversial plan, and is aware of the many reasons that there will be objections.

He then specifically mentioned that objections to new council measures tend to get a lot more attention if there were alternative proposals suggested, so encouraged everyone to consider other revenue generating/cost saving initiatives. He cited other parks elsewhere in London that have turned to different solutions during these budget squeezes, eg those that chose to cut back on gardening, litter picking etc in order to avoid charging for parking.

He also said that there were additional benefits to the plan, including encouraging people to leave cars at home to promote the Cleaner Greener Air scheme.

The charging is yet to be decided; it is currently proposed at ?2/hr with Blue Badge holders not paying.

POINTS FROM THE FLOOR

He then opened the floor to questions. There were many points raised; below in brief are the principle points I noted down. If you were there and recall more pls feel fre to add

- Belair Park is surrounded by 3 local schools and many nurseries who rely on the park car park as a drop off point for children. Without this there will be pressure on surrounding roads and back streets which are already congested and gridlocked. This brings into question the viability of claims of benefits to air quality and the environment. Congested back streets are more than likely to become CPZs as a result of this

- Many children play in and enjoy Belair Park after school as a result of parents using the car park as a pickup point. There is a real community here - children from all schools, backgrounds, and walks of life are currently using and enjoying the park together.

- Challenges were raised around exactly how much money this scheme would bring in; if there were less cars being driven to Belair Park then realistically the revenue generated would be fairly insignificant compared to the funding gap that Southwark find themselves in.

- There are few other modes of transport available. Belair Park is very poorly served by public transport links; the P13 along the South Circular is infrequent. Insufficient segregated cycle lanes in the area. Those with younger children going to nurseries etc don't have any other option.

- This scheme has been attempted before in 2013 and was knocked back. Andy Simmons' predecessor attended the meeting (did anyone catch her name/details?) and challenged the need to do this when Dulwich Ward were spending ?? on other schemes (eg ?42k on love Dulwich lampost signs)

- There are many people who are not blue-badge holders but are challenged to get to the park on available public transport eg elderly, unwell

- This will hit those hardest who are unable to afford it - families without access to local green spaces who will now need to pay.

- Queries around the cost of policing/patrolling Belair car park. Andy said that there were no costs since APCOA currently provide this service free of charge, and are paid by the fines they levy. There were challenges to this statement that this was not the case, or may not be the case going fwd.

- More generally the argument that privatising our public spaces is not a road we want to go down as the principle of our green spaces should be that they free to all; we already pay for them through taxation. This is the 'thin end of the wedge' and is opens the door to freely increasing charges in the future in the event of financial mismanagement of the local authorities.

- Yet another hidden tax on motorists

- A challenge from someone late into the meeting which was interesting: there is case law of existing parks in North London that attempted this and were told that money raised in parks is available for spending only within the parks themselves. Does anyone know the lady that raised this or know more? This is an interesting point which I don't feel Andy had a response for

- If this scheme is going ahead anyway, a number of alternatives were proposed including a discounted 'annual pass' enabling those that need to continue to use the car park without the daily charge, and also amnesty periods eg 8-10am, 3-5pm

SO WHAT HAPPENS NOW?

The official consultation period begins today (1st Apr) and will last for 6 weeks. This is NOT a statutory consultation - ie the council is under no obligation to respond. The consultation will be available here https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/ and everyone is encouraged to register their objections/proposals

I've just checked the site and the proposal is not yet on there, but will probably be put up this week.

The more people that respond to this, the more our voices will be heard so....

PLEASE MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO RESPOND!

[5imon]

Update -

The consultation is now online

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

[mrwb]

So when is the earliest these charges can now happen? Confused?

[5imon]

Per the consultation online - "from June 2019"

[Metallic]

The woman bringing up the issue of monies raised by events having to go back in to that park - a court of appeal ruling - was Mrs Patsy Bramble, Chair of the Dulwich Society licensing Committee.

[Pugwash]

Why do the council assume that everyone has a mobile phone!! I do not have one and find it extremely annoying parking where they do not take cash payments at the meter. I do not use the car routinely but picking up heavy goods, taking the cats to the vet (a good walk from bus stop with a heavy cat in basket.

[James Barber]

Some ideas to save money - http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s80904/Amendments.pdf

Assumption everyone has mobile phones - Council officers and councillors are provided with iPhones hence their assumption everyone has a mobil phone.

[bels123]

'Belair Park is surrounded by 3 local schools and many nurseries who rely on the park car park as a drop off point for children. Without this there will be pressure on surrounding roads and back streets which are already congested and gridlocked. This brings into question the viability of claims of benefits to air quality and the environment. Congested back streets are more than likely to become CPZs as a result of this'

Whilst other schools and parents are campaigning for school streets to improve air quality and safety around schools, the ones around Belair are lobbying to keep their convenient car parking arrangements in the local public park.....seriously?!

These charges are needed for this exact thing, to encourage a shift away from the over-reliance on cars - of course there are always exceptions but if you can afford to run a car in London a ?2 parking charge shouldn't be an issue. The poorest won't be affected the hardest - the poorer you are the less likely you are to drive.

[5imon]

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.