Dulwich Village area-wide CPZ consultation is back!

[Rockets]

Wow......just wow....basically the whole of Dulwich Village is going to become a CPZ area after all....I found this link on the bottom of the flyer announcing the Dulwich Villahe redesign consultation. I wonder if there will he a seperate flyer on the CPZ consultation as I sense the council are trying to bury this consultation?

It will be interesting to see if a yes/no mechanism is added to the consultation when it opens next week.

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/option2-dulwichvillage-stage2-cpz/

Time for the people to mobilise and go tell the council what we think of their plans......

December 2023 to January 2024 – Public Consultation.

• 15 December 2023, Dulwich Library, 368 Lordship Lane SE22 8NB, from 5pm to 7pm
• 10 January 2023, Dulwich Library, 368 Lordship Lane SE22 8NB, from 6pm to 8pm.
• In addition to the above, you can speak to someone from the council at Dulwich Library, 368 Lordship Lane SE22 8NB, from 10am to 4pm on 11 January 2024.
• February 2024 to March 2024 – Decision making.
• May 2024 – Statutory consultation subject to prior decision making.
• June 2024 to September 2024 – Decision making.
• Late 2024 – Implementation subject to prior decision making.

Edited December 8, 2023 by Rockets

[Spartacus]

Fantastic 

So the councils "poster scheme" restricting access to the village is going to get parking restrictions, why ? 

Cars are restricted from the area, apart from an occasional flurry of parking around the picture gallery or the pub, the area doesn't have issue. There is limited public transport in the village so not commuter pressure 😉  

I can only suspect that the council are hoping for apathy in the consultation  as most big houses have off street parking so they won't vote either way.  Let's hope and prey not and the village folk vote it down otherwise the impact on the shops in the area will be catastrophic with the double impact of restricted access and no parking. 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2023 by Spartacus

[first mate]

I doubt many Dulwich Village residents will mind that much. As you say Spartacus, many have huge driveways, garages and front gardens, more than enough to keep multiple cars without ever having to pay CPZ fees. I wonder how many of those houses is truly car free? 

What this will do is keep the hoi polloi from parking in DV and make the lives of poorer residents harder, while the wealthy get off scott free. Rejoice in our socialist council, giving to the rich and taking from the poor. Remind me also, how many councillors live in this area?

It will also place parking pressure on other nearby areas, I think that is what this is really about. Because, as you say, with the installation of village squares onto highway junctions and cameras set to fine ' motorist incomers' at various times of the day, it is not as if the area really needs CPZ. Deeply cynical, in my view.

 

 

[Charles Martel]

There is a blog post covering the detail of the proposed CPZ on opposethecpz.org.

http://opposethecpz.org/2023/12/09/twtw-8-december-2023/ 

Edited December 9, 2023 by Charles Martel
missing link

[malumbu]

For the sake of balance, and the need to reduce emissions, is there a link to a site that supports restrictions on vehicles?  Have you got any alternative proposals Charles?  What about OpposeCPZ, do they have any good ideas or are they single issue who couldn't give a fig about health and the environment which is my experience of those that most vocally oppose anything that restricts their motoring.

[vladi]

The council says that they propose to "reduce congestion for northbound traffic at the Dulwich Village – Red Post Hill junction." 

Pray tell, how can that be done when the congestion is due entirely to the LTN measures they introduced during the last 2 years?

They also say" We are also proposing pedestrian improvements at the Dulwich Village – Red Post Hill junction."

Pray tell, how can this be achieved without impairing traffic movement more than it is at present.

The back up of traffic at the DV-RPH-EDG  junction is horrendous with all these stationary vehicles pumping out pollutants- not to mention the deterioration of the buses on routes 37, 42 and P4.

[Spartacus]

25 minutes ago, malumbu said:

For the sake of balance, and the need to reduce emissions, is there a link to a site that supports restrictions on vehicles?  

How does a CPZ reduce pollution Mal ? 

If a car is parked its not polluting, if the driver doesn't have a permit they will be forced to moved their car daily this increasing pollution. So as a pollution reducing measure it hasn't got any merit. 

CPZs are supposed to aid residents parking when there are parking pressures in their area, they are not designed as a green measure, also CPZs apply to electric cars as well so that's not encouraging take up of electric now is it. 

So please explain how a CPZ will reduce emissions as you claim .

[malumbu]

It reduces the number of journeys.  Not rocket science.

[Rockets]

Oh dear oh dear oh dear...;-) Now where is that face palm emoji...;-)

.

Edited December 9, 2023 by Rockets

[Spartacus]

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

It reduces the number of journeys.  Not rocket science.

How ? 

[first mate]

Maybe in some places it does, who knows. However, to stay on subject, there is hardly a need to reduce car journeys in Dulwich Village and many residents will be under no requirement to stop using their cars as they have plenty of room to keep them without incurring CPZ charges.

Those impacted will be the poorer locals, without the land on which to keep cars. It will also impact neighbouring areas and less wealthy residents by creating parking pressure. As I said, a socialist council benefitting the rich while taking from those less well off. Great job!

[Rockets]

The consultation is now live and it has a yes/no response to two questions:

Do you agree with the proposed parking zone in your area?

Do you want controlled parking on your street?

Having a yes/no response is progress but, remember, the council has given itself an out by saying that even if there is an overwhelming negative response they can still force a CPZ on residents.

And I think that is what they are gearing up for with the "evidence" section and I suspect they are using that to force their plans through. Look at the "parking stress research" they have done for the area - not something I recognise as, to me, there seems to be very little parking stress in the affected area yet the council's "research" which took place over two days (allegedly between 7am and 7pm on a Tuesday and Thursday) tells a very different story.

 

 

 

 

[malumbu]

If you charge for parking when you are away from home you may decide that it is preferable to use another mode of transport.  If you are charged for parking outside or close to your home you may decide you won't keep a car.  If your visitors are charged for parking near your house then they may decide to use another mode of transport.  Perhaps the councillor engaged with kids as they understand this elementary logic.  I'm not sure why some on this thread do not.  

[Spartacus]

29 minutes ago, malumbu said:

If you charge for parking when you are away from home you may decide that it is preferable to use another mode of transport.  If you are charged for parking outside or close to your home you may decide you won't keep a car.  If your visitors are charged for parking near your house then they may decide to use another mode of transport.  Perhaps the councillor engaged with kids as they understand this elementary logic.  I'm not sure why some on this thread do not.  

So much to discuss there Mal 

Most people don't choose to drive to their destination, they do it as a necessarity due to family size, shopping requirements or simple lack of alternatives so being charged to park is just seen as a necessary tax. 

Very few people choose to give up their cars when a CPZ is introduced and seen as an unnecessary tax if there are no parking pressures locally.

If visitors or trades people are charged then they may well decide not to come to your house, and for some that increases loneliness 🫣

As for councillors engaging with school children, it's easy to present ideas to kids then get them to draw their solution as they are in learning mode and belive what they are shown, whereas adults stop and question things so it's a bit of a low trick for a school teacher /  councillor mCash 

[sally buying]

"As for councillors engaging with school children, it's easy to present ideas to kids then get them to draw their solution as they are in learning mode and believe what they are shown, whereas adults stop and question things so it's a bit of a low trick for a school teacher /  councillor mCash "

How very true.

It appears this current generation have learnt their lessons at school well well as they seem to know all the answers to everything without any real life experiences. Not only lessons but social media directs them in the direction required without thought.

[Kathleen Olander]

The reason the roads coded red have so many parked cars, is due to the private schools, JAGS and Alleyns.  Carlton Avenue in term time is bumper to bumper from top to bottom.  East Dulwich Grove and Townley Road is full of coaches and cars each day from around 1 p.m. onwards.

Likewise Gilkes Crescent, Dulwich Village and Turney Road have people parking to shop, (it is a High Street after all) and accommodate staff and visitors to the Village schools.

The schools have only a handful of parking spaces, so no parking for staff or visitors.  Therefore they all park on surrounding streets.

Why should Southwark residents have to pay to park just to stop the school staff turning their roads into car parks.

Do Southwark Council receive any payment from the school coach companies for parking?

 

 

 

 

[tommyboy]

According to the proposed plans, the coach parking bays along Townley Road allow free parking.

[malumbu]

Kathleen - you've made a good case for a CPZ, to discourage people driving their kids to school.  Coaches are preferable as you take dozens of cars off the road.   I wish Dulwich College would introduce paid parking on their roads.

And if you are concerned about the cost to you, think of the benefits of less congestion, less pollution, lower carbon emissions, wider health benefits as more cycle/walk with safer roads, and less parking pressure for residents.  Lots of wins there.

[Kathleen Olander]

33 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Kathleen - you've made a good case for a CPZ, to discourage people driving their kids to school.  Coaches are preferable as you take dozens of cars off the road.   I wish Dulwich College would introduce paid parking on their roads.

And if you are concerned about the cost to you, think of the benefits of less congestion, less pollution, lower carbon emissions, wider health benefits as more cycle/walk with safer roads, and less parking pressure for residents.  Lots of wins there.

It doesn't affect me, I have no car and I don't drive.

I don't think CPZ's or LTN's work, they just make traffic/parking someone else's problem, and in Southwark that means the less fortunate.

[first mate]

And, free coach parking for children attending private, fee paying schools, where many of them also live well outside the area and even outside the borough. No free space for local residents, they must pay. However, free for those wealthy enough to put their children through private schooling. Go figure.

Edited December 12, 2023 by first mate

[Kathleen Olander]

31 minutes ago, first mate said:

And, free coach parking for children attending private, fee paying schools, where many of them also live well outside the area and even outside the borough. No free space for local residents, they must pay. However, free for those wealthy enough to put their children through private schooling. Go figure.

That's right, the children bussed in on coaches everday are not local.  They are currently transporting 1,350 pupils daily.   Also bear in mind they contribute nothing to the local economy as they never leave the school premises!

[sally buying]

The children come to learn not spend money in over priced shops.

[CPR Dave]

What an absolute joke this survey is. 

How can they possibly expect people to swallow the myth that there is parking pressure on roads like Calton Avenue or Gilkes Crescent when literally every single house on those roads has a car park in front of it with space for at least two cars?

They must think people are so stupid.

 

[Kathleen Olander]

1 hour ago, CPR Dave said:

What an absolute joke this survey is. 

How can they possibly expect people to swallow the myth that there is parking pressure on roads like Calton Avenue or Gilkes Crescent when literally every single house on those roads has a car park in front of it with space for at least two cars?

They must think people are so stupid.

 

According to Southwark's Evidence in the latest Streets for People, local residents in Calton Ave and Gilkes and others have asked Southwark Council to introduce a CPZ.

Regardless of their drives they want their streets emptied of all the parked cars which for the most part belong to staff and visitors of Alleyns and JAGS.

If they get the CPZ's introduced all that traffic and parking ends up on someone else's street, most likely where the less well off live!

 

[Rockets]

Do we know that these are requests from residents? If I remember rightly anyone can leave feedback on the interactive map they have used to collate some of that "evidence" - you don't have to be a resident of said street to leave feedback - would be interesting to know how many of them are from local residents as the way they position it in the document it doesn't suggest it is resident feedback: The green dots on the map below indicate where we have received requests for parking restrictions:

 

Bottom-line is much of what the council are presenting as "evidence" is not something people in the area recognise as a problem and I very much hope that people mobilise against the council and say a firm no to the proposals and the council understands the weight of feeling against them - this has nothing to do with active travel or climate change and everything to do with revenue generation - a new tax for those that rely on cars.