Parking Zone - 'Peckham West'

[Zone2]

I wanted to start another threat specifically looking at the Controlled Parking Zone now being proposed for ?Peckham West? - an area encompassing 33 streets roughly bordered by Goose Green, Copleston Road, Choumert Road and Fenwick Road.

Despite a response rate of less than a third (30%,) of whom 48% are against a parking zone, compared to 43% who want one (with 9% undecided) - Southwark Highways Dept are proposing to introduce a parking zone in any case.

As predicted elsewhere, the consultation highlights the response to one hypothetical scenario as justification. Namely, even though most don?t want one, if a CPZ was still introduced on a neighbouring road, what then?

Unsurprisingly in this hypothesis, so as to avoid their street becoming the new parking spot of choice for those who now can?t park where they used to, the response shifts so that 56% say they would in that instance support a CPZ.

Voila - the magic ?majority? of more than 50% has been reached, evidence apparently that a CPZ should indeed be introduced for the entire area between 8.30am and 6.30pm Monday to Friday, which is what is now being put forward.

Everyone will have their own views, but in my opinion at least, to manipulate a survey response in this way is verging on the scandalous.

11 streets voted in favour of a CPZ, 13 voted against and 8 were undecided. Combined with the total number of responses against outweighing those for (48% v 43%) that is surely an overwhelming argument for leaving things as they are.

The consultation doesn?t make it hugely obvious as to who best to respond to, it just says send feedback to ?your relevant Community Council?.

If anyone wishes to do so , the chair is [email protected]

and the Councillor for Rye Lane Ward is [email protected]

[Penguin68]

New Southwark question - 'and how would you vote if the alternative was for your children to be sold into slavery and your spouse's brain hooked out with a boat-hook? Oh, it looks like 100% in favour of a CPZ, then!'

Putting in a consequential in a survey like that is deplorable, once again confirming that politicians, certainly in Southwark, cannot be trusted and certainly cannot be respected.

[peterwlindsay]

Confusingly, the Community Council 'Forum' seems separate to the Community Council - or at least has a different chair in [email protected]

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=436

I also can't see any dates of future meetings, and the last ones listed on the website were in 2017. Feels very much like we've been pointed towards a dead-end in terms of giving feedback.

As well as Zone2's point about that hypothetical scenario, the decision to implement all-day seems pretty heavy handed:

293 voted for all day operation

249 voted for two hours

318 voted for something else - but they haven't broken that down between "Part day (for example 10am to 2pm)" and "Other (please specify)" - nor have they broken down what people specified under Other. It may well be that there is a majority for something less than all day operation.

Given they are implementing this despite more people being against a parking zone than for one, it seems crazy to jump straight to all day.

[dresswaves]

Dulwich Community Council Meeting Saturday April 27th 2:30pm Dulwich Library

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/_images/pageside/9197/CC%20Dul%2027%20April%202019%20poster.jpg

[Zone2]

* UPDATE *

I have been in touch with Southwark and have been advised the person to whom feedback should be directed is Richard Livingstone, the cabinet member for transport.

[email protected]

FWIW from a personal perspective, whilst no council is perfect, I generally have a positive opinion of Southwark. Many will disagree, but I am also of the view that most people who go into local politics, whatever their political persuasion, do so with the best of intentions ? ie to try and make a positive difference to the place where they live

Which is what makes this recommendation so odd. It goes against what the majority of people who took part in the survey said they wanted, and will have a huge impact on everyone living in the area. Even those without cars will be visited by friends, families and businesses who do.

[Penguin68]

It goes against what the majority of people who took part in the survey said they wanted, and will have a huge impact on everyone living in the area.

But it doesn't (1) go against Tooley St.'s stated policy to drive cars out of the borough or (2) their desire to create revenue streams off-community charge or (3) in order to further aims 1 and 2 above to ensure that decisions will force neighbouring locations to clamour in their turn for a CPZ to exclude 'foreign' cars from their streets.

This is not and never has been about meeting the needs of local residents - these are just a wedge for a far wider agenda. Herne Hill (Lambeth, not Southwark) is a good example of a listening council here - with a limited CPZ around a station, on limited hours. Something you won't see in Southwark (or I think Lewisham) with a very different agenda.

[Administrator]

Excellent, another CPZ thread. What was wrong with the previous West Peckham/Peckham West thread? https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1998115,page=1

[TheArtfulDogger]

It's interesting to see how Southwark interpret their survey results

The highlights from the Dog Kennel Hill survey stated "From 365 valid responses representing a 15% response rate, 49% of respondents were in favour of a parking zone, 39% were against a parking zone and 12% were undecided." Yet this 49% in favour was classed as giving the green light

In contrast, the Peckham west survey highlights said "There was no clear majority in response to the question do you want a parking zone in your street with 48% against a parking zone, 43% wanting a zone and 9% were undecided. Results were very similar when excluding visitors to the area (49%, 42% and 9%) with 11 streets in favour and 13 streets not in favour and 8 undecided."

So excluding visitors to the area, the same 49% of respondents NOT in favour of a CPZ in Peckham West (which matches those in favour in the Dog Kennel hill one) is classed as no clear majority so they had to then resort to question 2 yet in Dog Kennel Hill it was obviously a clear enough majority to get a CPZ

One to challenge the council on I think

[AylwardS]

Hopefully the below will throw some clarity on the community council / forum.

The Community Forum is on the Council website and the parking zones for West Peckham and East Dulwich Healthier streets are on the agenda for the Dulwich Community Council (rather than the Peckham one) Guess they could only have officers attend one if needed and the agenda item is for West Peckham and Dulwich Healthier Streets.

The website has the community council / forum details in a couple of places as peterwlindsay said, so the OP may have missed these. There are also community councils for Peckham and Dulwich and the Council has put this under the Dulwich one - the area does cover both I believe.

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=176&MId=6065&Ver=4

Note that anything to be considered at Council meetings, I don?t know about Southwark and things may well have changed as its a few years since I had to input to any Council Meetings, usually needs to be provided in advance so the attendees have time to read and digest it so its unlikely anything sent as feedback now will be discussed at the meeting on 27 April unless someone attends and brings it up.

Questions asked at the Community Council may be answered at the meeting or in writing afterwards. The Community Council can submit one question to the Council Assembly in July 2019. Probably needs someone to push it as it only looks like they can ask one question and there are probably a number of issues residents want raised.

?Any question to be submitted from a community council to council assembly should first be the subject of discussion at a community council meeting. The subject matter and question should be clearly noted by the community council and thereafter the agreed question can be referred to the constitutional team.

?

The community council is invited to consider if it wishes to submit a question to the ordinary meeting of council assembly in July 2019?

The members of the Dulwich committee can be found on this page http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgCommitteeMailingList.aspx?ID=176

The Chair of the Committee is Councillor Andy Simmons

Email [email protected]. I recognise a few of the names of other councillors who I guess are local councillors so probably worth copying any email to you r local councillor(s) too. The suggestion to contact Councillor Livingstone is probably because he will make the ultimate decision as parking comes under him and he?ll be looking at the bigger picture borough wide. The councillors on the community council should be looking at the impact locally.

[Zone2]

Sorry Administrator, didn?t see that other thread.. apologies

[rollflick]

When deciding whether to make traffic orders for things like CPZs, the council is legally required to consider many more factors that simply residents' views, such bus reliability, congestion, obesity & air pollution. This was briefly mentioned towards the end but was easy to miss:

"Any parking controls or street improvements that we introduce will take into account the results of the consultation as well as existing highway safety issues in the proposed zone, feedback from emergency services, and our wider transport policies reflecting our responsibilities to air quality and active travel."

With the council failing to meet its legal obligations on air quality and progress on road safety stalling since 2013, more action is clearly needed.

The consultation questionnaire failed to give people an opportunity to make informed comment on alternative means the council could implement to help achieve these wider borough objectives. It was simply - and wrongly - focused on whether you had parking problems or not. Likewise the consultation report fails to mention the legal context the decision has to be taken within. That's not going to help ensure a fully informed discussion at the community council meeting. So it's easy to see why people are questioning the council's approach, it should have been communicated consistently at each step of the process, otherwise people will understandably have concerns.

The Dog Kennel Hill CPZ certainly has had an impact, a positive one. It's made the streets more pleasant, no longer dominated by a wall of metal on both sides of the street and enabled delivery vans, Ubers etc. to stop without causing a blockage. Now it's gone in, people have got used to it. Similar measures are needed particularly to help the P13 route run more reliably through 'Peckham West' and improve conditions for cycling and walking such as on Adys Road.

[Eileen]

In response to part of Aylwards post copied below ? The Dulwich Community Council covers the Dulwich wards which now includes Goose Green ward but not Rye Lane ward which is covered by the Peckham and Nunhead Community Council. So the area covered by the ?Peckham West? CPZ is a unified neighbourhood that is split between two wards and two Community Councils. The attached pdf shows the boundary. It makes sense to have a discussion about the Peckham West CPZ with residents on both sides of the boundary but the Dulwich Chair has said that residents on the Rye Lane ward side must visit Rye Lane ward councillor surgeries. Peckham Community Council had its last meeting before the summer on 3rd April and the CPZ report was not mentioned, and was issued later. Residents from both sides of the border are aiming to attend on Saturday 27th April at Dulwich Library and want to take part in the discussion.

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

Posted by AylwardS April 18, 01:36PM extract:

The Community Forum is on the Council website and the parking zones for West Peckham and East Dulwich Healthier streets are on the agenda for the Dulwich Community Council (rather than the Peckham one) Guess they could only have officers attend one if needed and the agenda item is for West Peckham and Dulwich Healthier Streets. The website has the community council / forum details in a couple of places as peterwlindsay said, so the OP may have missed these. There are also community councils for Peckham and Dulwich and the Council has put this under the Dulwich one - the area does cover both I believe.

[Eileen]

Posted by tmcoleman Yesterday, 12:57PM on this page: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1932267,page=12

I am copying this post below to show the kinds of questions being raised by the Peckham West CPZ report. Eileen

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

Posted by tmcoleman Yesterday, 12:57PM

Hi James

I am in your GG ward but fall within the proposed Peckham West parking zone. You kindly emailed me back, sharing the PW consultation raw data for question 10 on times of operation. The questionnaire gave four choices:

- All day (for example 8.30am to 6.30pm)

- Part day (for example 10am to 2pm)

- Two hours during the day (e.g 11am to 1pm)

- Other (please specify)

I?m confused by the conclusion drawn by the Council and disappointed that the complete data has not been publicly shared so have cut and pasted your email below:

**************

The breakdown of responses is as follows:

- All day: 34%

- 12-2pm: 29%

- Part of the day: 13%

- Other: 17%

- Did not answer: 7%

Of those who answered ?Other?, there was a mixture of responses including

- We do not want the parking zone

- None at all

- All day

- Two hours or part day

*************

My questions are:

1) Why have the combined responses for ?part day? and ?Two hours during the day? not been considered (as the Council did for the Denmark Hill CPZ!) and therefore a conclusion drawn that PW majority support ?less than full day??

3) I see the previous Denmark Hill CPZ Report included the raw data with the recommendations. Please could you provide some rationale for the raw data having not been provided this time for both the ED and PW Reports?

[Earl Aelfheah]

As the council is effectively privatising pieces of the street for individuals who want to use it for long term car storage - will those without cars also be able to pay a small annual fee for a small section of street - perhaps to turn it into a green space / garden area?

[Penguin68]

As the council is effectively privatising pieces of the street for individuals who want to use it for long term car storage

If only that were true - actually the council is rationing (at a price, over which you have no control) the right to park in specific areas - with the hope that this will also exclude you from being able to park anywhere else locally (if they can extend the CPZs as they are trying to do by fair means or foul) and with absolutely no guarantee that you will in fact be able to park within the area that have paid to be entitled to (and certainly not in any fixed point close to your residence). If the area is blocked by skips, by other 'entitled' vehicles etc. etc. then you will be stuffed.

[woodyp91]

Thank you for this - it is exactly as I suspected - everything about this 'consultation' smacked of disingenuous manipulation. THAT is why I reacted so badly to it - it's like we are being taken for a massive ride - all in the name of 'healthy streets'.

[Eileen]

Local residents in streets covered by the proposed Peckham West CPZ will be attending the Dulwich Community Council meeting tomorrow Saturday 27th April 2.30pm Dulwich Library. The CPZ issues are on the agenda for 3.10pm. There is a break at 3pm - we hope we can identify those of us who have come for that item. If you are affected by these proposals, please come to link in with other local residents concerned about the recommendations.

Please note that we have arranged a community public discussion about the Peckham West CPZ summary interim report for the following SATURDAY 4th MAY 2pm-4pm in Amott Road Baptist Church hall (off Adys Road). All affected by the recommendations are welcome to the meeting. Councillors for Goose Green ward and Rye Lane ward have been invited.

[XDoc]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> It goes against what the majority of people who

> took part in the survey said they wanted, and will

> have a huge impact on everyone living in the

> area.

>

> But it doesn't (1) go against Tooley St.'s stated

> policy to drive cars out of the borough or (2)

> their desire to create revenue streams

> off-community charge or (3) in order to further

> aims 1 and 2 above to ensure that decisions will

> force neighbouring locations to clamour in their

> turn for a CPZ to exclude 'foreign' cars from

> their streets.

>

> This is not and never has been about meeting the

> needs of local residents - these are just a wedge

> for a far wider agenda. Herne Hill (Lambeth, not

> Southwark) is a good example of a listening

> council here - with a limited CPZ around a

> station, on limited hours. Something you won't see

> in Southwark (or I think Lewisham) with a very

> different agenda.

Absolutely spot on...

[Earl Aelfheah]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> As the council is effectively privatising pieces

> of the street for individuals who want to use it

> for long term car storage - will those without

> cars also be able to pay a small annual fee for a

> section of street - perhaps to turn it into

> a green space / garden area?

...after all the CPZ is definitely about healthy streets and not about making it easier to keep a car.

[Eileen]

come and join us at Dulwich Library 2.30pm today to get a hearing on Peckham West CPZ issues. Give us your email address if you want to join our work on this.

[Lynne]

I would have liked to have joined you, Eileen, but couldn't get in

[Eileen]

Lynne Wrote:

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

> I would have liked to have joined you, Eileen, but

> couldn't get in

Hi Lynne I couldn't get in either! They had a second meeting at 4pm-5pm repeating the CPZ presentation and Q/As. The first session was packed standing room only maybe up to 100. The second sitting almost all seats taken maybe up to 80. There was probably more heat than light. Poor forethought to have that room for such an issue. Mostly about East Dulwich but now at last an acknowledgment that part of 'Peckham West' is in Dulwich Community Council, and they allowed Goose Green residents, but not the rest of us, to speak. So no rounded discussion of Peckham West CPZ.

However residents in the streets covered by Peckham West CPZ have our own residents' organised meeting next Saturday 4th May 2-4pm at Amott Road Baptist Church hall. There we aim to have a facilitated informed discussion, not a Q/A session with the Council. We are compiling a list of the issues and Qs we all have to ensure that we go through them one by one - get the facts and then enable us to make comments so that we can all benefit from a variety of thoughts and understand the different issues in different streets.

So if you live in one of these streets please email me at [email protected] to give me your Qs or issues to be involved in the process. Hope you can come to our residents' meeting Lynne.

Cllr Richard Livingstone, the Cabinet Member responsible, has accepted our invitation to attend. Ward Councillors for Goose Green and Rye Lane have been invited.

[MarkT]

At the start of the consultations for the 2 CPZs - East Dulwich and West Peckham, we were told that the problem was the commuters parking close to East Dulwich Station. Indeed Councillor Livingstone (the Decision Maker) made public statements to that effect.

In the West Peckham proposed CPZ it seems to me that the streets against the CPZ are clustered towards the Station and those in favour are those adjoining existing CPZs. Asked would they change their mind if a neighbouring street was made CPZ, the streets that stuck to their opposition are those towards the station and furthest from the existing CPZ.

I think it challenges Councillor Livingstone's prejudice. To me it demonstrates the domino effect of CPZs. The parking pressure experienced by residents in the proposed CPZ is not to do with the station but is displacement from the neighbouring CPZ.

The CPZ promoters show their carefully selected photos and entreat us to see for ourselves the empty streets of a new CPZ. Of course they are empty - why should all the residents rush to buy their permits when they park for free just down the road.

[Eileen]

MarkT Wrote:

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

> At the start of the consultations for the 2 CPZs -

> East Dulwich and West Peckham, we were told that

> the problem was the commuters parking close to

> East Dulwich Station. Indeed Councillor

> Livingstone (the Decision Maker) made public

> statements to that effect.

>

> In the West Peckham proposed CPZ it seems to me

> that the streets against the CPZ are clustered

> towards the Station and those in favour are those

> adjoining existing CPZs. Asked would they change

> their mind if a neighbouring street was made CPZ,

> the streets that stuck to their opposition are

> those towards the station and furthest from the

> existing CPZ.

>

> I think it challenges Councillor Livingstone's

> prejudice. To me it demonstrates the domino effect

> of CPZs. The parking pressure experienced by

> residents in the proposed CPZ is not to do with

> the station but is displacement from the

> neighbouring CPZ.

>

> The CPZ promoters show their carefully selected

> photos and entreat us to see for ourselves the

> empty streets of a new CPZ. Of course they are

> empty - why should all the residents rush to buy

> their permits when they park for free just down

> the road.

Hi Mark - if you live in the Peckham West CP zone will you be able to coemn to our community meeting on Saturday 4th May 2-4pm?

[peckham_ryu]

I have been converted from opposing CPZ in my road, to being unexpectedly pleased with the actual effect. On Chadwick Road, the controlled time is just a couple of hours in the middle of the day, to stop people who don?t live in the road from using it as a free car park / park and ride for Peckham Rye station. When the Council proposed the parking restrictions originally, I was bothered by the reduced parking that would result from the changes, in an already congested road.

Now though, gone are the old bangers and vans that always clogged the kerbs up and made it hard to see round corners. The whole road is suddenly open, and if you want to park you?ll have no trouble as long as it?s not in the 2 hour window of parking restriction.

Much as I hate to admit I was wrong, the Council did know better in this case. Maybe their proposals aren?t all bad all the time.