Melbourne Grove South CPZ consultation

[Orange owl]

Too many people want very large cars even people who could walk or cycle there is not enough space it’s not 40 years ago.  I’m all for more restrictions 

[Moovart]

Ironically I think the restrictions will most benefit those residents with the largest cars, as these require the most space, and those that have no financial worries about paying the permit price. 

At the moment, if you have a small car you can usually find enough space during the day and the CPZ is all about day time parking ie aiming to deter people that need to drive into the area like those running shops and businesses in LL, teachers, other workers. I really feel for some of the businesses that start work at 6 or 7am or finish late.  Presumably they won't even be entitled to apply for permits as LL and East side streets are not in the proposed zone 

In the evening and overnight there is usually quite a lot of space to park so that won't change except it will have to be paid for if a CPZ comes in.

[malumbu]

Parking is part of the normal cost for many who drive to work.  Why should we feel sorry?

[Spartacus]

36 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Parking is part of the normal cost for many who drive to work.  Why should we feel sorry?

Okay 

So in the middle of a cost of living crisis, when businesses are having an unprecedented rise in employers ni contributions, that will have unpredicted impacts on consumer habits and potentially push the UK into at worst, a recession,  at best tightening of belts, you want to add additional costs on local businesses and if they go under that's their issue ? 

Maybe you don't need to graft to put food on your families table but our lovely shopkeepers and staff do.

Ar times you're as sensitive as Trump and Vance! 

[Moovart]

I don't feel sorry, it's more that if people need to use a car to get here at 6 or 7am or whatever reason they need to use a car (some people really do need to) and they are not eligible for permits as they are in businesses in LL rather than in the CPZ then maybe they'll move the business.  Didn't the butchers move to ED when a red route was introduced outside their shop in Vauxhall?

There will only be limited pay as you go parking so you won't be able to pay and park your car all day. That won't be an option so it's not about just charging non residents.

45 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Parking is part of the normal cost for many who drive to work.  Why should we feel sorry?

  

 

[malumbu]

12 hours ago, Spartacus said:

In a few years we won't be allowed to buy new ICE vehicles, electric only therefore that alone will massively reduce carbon emissions so the argument that a CPZ is there to reduce carbon emissions in itself should lead to removing CPZs when cars are mostly electric 

Or do you disagree @malumbu? 

OK, it's late so I will try and summarise

1.  It's going to take much longer than originally planned to turn the fleet electric.  Covid/financial crisis hasn't helped but much of the blame on manufacturers for dragging their feet and supersizing their vehicles (Audi, JLR, Mercdedes, Volvo and others) rather than promoting smaller more efficient vehicles

2.  Replacing conventional vehicles with EVs means we still have congested roads, EV is part of the solution, using vehicles less and smarter and moving to more sustainable forms of transport the other part of the equation

3.  You have to produce electricity and we are far from making this fully sustainable

4. Embedded carbon in vehicle manufacture, the larger the bigger the carbon footprint, particularly as utility of our fleet is getting lower.

So no, on its own, it is not the answer

[first mate]

4 hours ago, Moovart said:

Ironically I think the restrictions will most benefit those residents with the largest cars, as these require the most space, and those that have no financial worries about paying the permit price. 

At the moment, if you have a small car you can usually find enough space during the day and the CPZ is all about day time parking ie aiming to deter people that need to drive into the area like those running shops and businesses in LL, teachers, other workers. I really feel for some of the businesses that start work at 6 or 7am or finish late.  Presumably they won't even be entitled to apply for permits as LL and East side streets are not in the proposed zone 

In the evening and overnight there is usually quite a lot of space to park so that won't change except it will have to be paid for if a CPZ comes in.

Spot on. There is currently enough room to park most of the time. Sometimes it may need to be a street away. 

[Charles Martel]

8 hours ago, first mate said:

Charles, this is very useful. The question I would ask is what does the 'majority' mean? Is it the majority of residents in the consultation area or the majority of those who respond to the consultation? Well organised pro CPZ groups, with members living well outside the consultation area will be engaging with this consultation and that could weight the response. Are there any insights into how responses are calculated?

I cannot say as i have no connection with the author or the leaflet, but since i live outside the area under consultation i would imagine they meant the majority of East Dulwich residents who were not informed by the council of the CPZ proposal.   I went to the two public meetings in 2019 when the larger East Dulwich CPZ was proposed by the council based on the parking situation around East Dulwich station.  Based on what I heard from residents then I do not think there is any chance whatsoever of majority support for a CPZ across the wider East Dulwich area.  What can be said for parking around Melbourne Grove can be said for most residential streets in East Dulwich.  A CPZ will do nothing for parking on most streets as almost all the cars belong to the people who live there who will all buy permits.

There are people who post regularly here who seem to think this is about winning an argument on the internet, however the reality is they, and Southwark council, never actually engage with local people at all.  From the beginning in 2019, through all the other consultations and the unlawful borough wide fiasco in 2023 there has never been any attempt to use a logical argument to sway opinion in their direction.  Instead we are all supposed to be so hysterical about climate change that we will believe paying Southwark council to paint white lines on the road around cars will control the weather!   This is so clearly green washing a cynical cash grab that it barely merits consideration.

[DulvilleRes]

6 hours ago, Charles Martel said:

A CPZ will do nothing for parking on most streets as almost all the cars belong to the people who live there who will all buy permits.

 

The evidence from Gilkes Crescent, which voted for a CPZ, says otherwise.

Before the CPZ the street was a byword for anti LTN campaigners saying everyone owned 2 or 3 cars, and it was indeed a rammed street. After the CPZ, all the parking pressure is gone. According to people who live there, there were large numbers of cars semi-permanently parked up - often people buying and selling cars as a side hustle - these have all gone. Take a walk down it, the transformation is staggering. 

[first mate]

Interested to know how the evidence for a majority in favour on that street was collated?

If there was a known side hustle on Gilkes it seems odd the council never took action, wouldn't it be illegal to operate a business out on the street without a licence?

That aside, the only legal reason for imposing a CPZ is because of parking pressure. A lot of people in the current consultation area do not believe CPZ is warranted on those grounds, that is unless you are someone that expects to park outside your home every day.

The current arguments in favour of CPZ on here, and posited by the council, revolve around pollution and making things 'fairer' for shoppers visiting ED in cars as well as 'fairer'  to those that live in CPZ zones closer to the city, despite them having far superior transport links. Cllr McAsh also says he wants to rid the streets of all cars, so hopes to pound car owners into submission with increasing CPZ charges.

Alongside this, the council is trying to maintain the appearance of concern and support for businesses on Lordship Lane by saying cars can continue to park on the high street. However, think how many anti- car posters on here have moaned about parked cars impeding buses on the high street. Doesn't make sense, does it?

 

 

[traveler2]

Bring on the CPZ, but limit it to a couple of hours / day, Mon-Sat as is done in other neighboring areas. Works wonders to reduce the parking issues for local residents which currently are quite bad in East Dulwich. I dare not move my car during the day as when I return its virtually impossible to find a space on any of the local streets. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

How is a CPZ a 'threat to our wonderful high street'?

I don't feel very strongly on this CPZ either way, but this seems like a hyperbolic and completely unevidenced claim.

[Penguin68]

Can I remind people, again, that many of those who travel into Dulwich in cars are here to teach our children, person our hospitals and clinics and surgeries, serve in our shops and restaurants and generally make our lives better. If they live to the East or West of us then they are poorly served, if at all, by public transport, which is mainly optimised North: South. What few East: West buses we have go on circuitous routes and take ages longer than cars driven directly. And many of those who serve us don't ride bicycles, not infrequently because their routes are too hilly for them. And they are not necessarily that young or fit. 

Amended to add, as regards the last post, that losing those people who work on our 'wonderful high street', would hardly be positive, which could happen if we make it more difficult to get there. And less welcoming. 

Edited March 14 by Penguin68

[Charles Martel]

4 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

The evidence from Gilkes Crescent, which voted for a CPZ, says otherwise.

No it does not.  If Gilkes Crescent, in Dulwich Village, needed a CPZ that is not evidence every street in Dulwich Village or East Dulwich needs a CPZ.  Certainly the residents of the other streets in that area did not think so when they were consulted at the same time.  Parking conditions are simply not the same everywhere.

No one has said or is saying that there should never be any CPZs anywhere.  The point that I and many others have made, time after time, is that the conditions laid out in the relevant legislation should be followed with regard to consultation.  The legislation is 40+ years old.  It has been tested in court multiple times and so there is ample case law for reference.  The law is not there for raising revenue and it is not meant as some kind of blanket anti-car measure.  If the law is followed then there should be no objection to a CPZ being implemented for the benefit of the residents who asked for it.

It has been clear since 2023 that Southwark council have wanted to go beyond what the law allows them to do.  Councillor McAsh clearly stated that a borough-wide CPZ was to be implemented with no consultation.  This was stated in writing and in public meetings multiple times over several months in 2023.  This plan was only withdrawn after a legal challenge from a well organised campaign because it is unlawful to impose a CPZ without consultation.  

The public need to be aware that this is the context when any CPZ proposal is made now.  There must always be the expectation that the consultation  process will not be fair as Southwark council wants the income and they have shown they are happy to lie to get it.

[malumbu]

2 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

Can I remind people, again, that many of those who travel into Dulwich in cars are here to teach our children, person our hospitals and clinics and surgeries, serve in our shops and restaurants and generally make our lives better. If they live to the East or West of us then they are poorly served, if at all, by public transport...

Oh come on, most people commute by public transport.  You are just making excuses.  If it takes longer to drive or to use public transport, so what.  It may be annoying but that is life.  I'm sure most of us have jobs where the commute is easier, and other jobs where it has been a pain.  I expect an hour is very much the norm door to door for most of us living in London.

1 hour ago, Charles Martel said:

No it does not.  If Gilkes Crescent, in Dulwich Village, needed a CPZ that is not evidence every street in Dulwich Village or East Dulwich needs a CPZ.  Certainly the residents of the other streets in that area did not think so when they were consulted at the same time.  Parking conditions are simply not the same everywhere.

No one has said or is saying that there should never be any CPZs anywhere.  The point that I and many others have made, time after time, is that the conditions laid out in the relevant legislation should be followed with regard to consultation.  The legislation is 40+ years old.  It has been tested in court multiple times and so there is ample case law for reference.  The law is not there for raising revenue and it is not meant as some kind of blanket anti-car measure.  If the law is followed then there should be no objection to a CPZ being implemented for the benefit of the residents who asked for it.

It has been clear since 2023 that Southwark council have wanted to go beyond what the law allows them to do.  Councillor McAsh clearly stated that a borough-wide CPZ was to be implemented with no consultation.  This was stated in writing and in public meetings multiple times over several months in 2023.  This plan was only withdrawn after a legal challenge from a well organised campaign because it is unlawful ......

What is the law?  As far as I understand local authorities have the power and are subject to non-statutory guidance.  Ultimately decisions can be challenged through judicial review.  Most governments let local authorities get on with it.  Only Sunak, in desperation, appealed to the petrol heads and that got him nowhere.  Thankfully his motorists' charter was disposed of when he was deposed.  Until then governments of both colour had been going loosely in the right direction with regards to sustainable and active travel, certainly from Blair onwards.

[first mate]

The people who drive in for work may not live in areas well served by public transport, it may be much more difficult for them to use public transport. 

That aside, currently the parking pressure is not so great in the ED consultation area that a CPZ is required. That is the only reason to impose one.

[malumbu]

I referred to commuting.  Not those who have to drive in the course of their work.  And if the businesses have to pay to park?  Again, so what?  All businesses operating in central London have had to pay to drive unless electric.  Huge swathes of London, and every city, have parking restrictions.  Not sure why you are fighting the battles of others.

Edited March 14 by malumbu

[first mate]

Some people commute in by car; that is what I was referring to. Essentially your rationale boils down to - some parts of London have controlled parking (mainly those closer to the centre, to tube trains and better transport hubs) so East Dulwich should have it too.

You are not really that interested in relieving parking pressure- the only reason to have CPZ- but want it imposed on an area you do not live in for ideological reasons.

Edited March 14 by first mate

[CPR Dave]

These aren't the battles of others. People who live here (not you, FFS), like the businesses we have. We want them to thrive. We want them to be able to hire staff who can afford to come to work here. We don't want to have the prices increased in our local shops to fund pay hikes to cover the cost of capricious tax hikes imposed by a greedy dishonest council. 

As a community issues that affect one group of people who live or work here, affect all of the people who live and work here, so their battles are our battles. 

The one person in this conversation who is fighting a battle that is not theirs is you, Malumbu. You don't live here, you don't work here and you have no business in this discussion.

[malumbu]

Rude

[Spartacus]

The truth hurts Mal ?? 

[malumbu]

Dunno why people can't be civil rather than aggressive/ passive aggressive.  Dunno why you are now stirring things.  Petty insults aren't helpful to a grown up debate.  

[first mate]

19 hours ago, Charles Martel said:

No one has said or is saying that there should never be any CPZs anywhere.  The point that I and many others have made, time after time, is that the conditions laid out in the relevant legislation should be followed with regard to consultation.  The legislation is 40+ years old.  It has been tested in court multiple times and so there is ample case law for reference.  The law is not there for raising revenue and it is not meant as some kind of blanket anti-car measure.  If the law is followed then there should be no objection to a CPZ being implemented.

Indeed and it is clear from the points raised by those who go around trying to ensure CPZ are imposed in areas they do not live in, that parking pressure is hardly a consideration at all.

[Earl Aelfheah]

If you don't want a CPZ in Melbourne Grove then say so. But don't claim it's going to lead to the high street collapsing. There are plenty of legitimate arguments you can make without resorting to hyperbole. I also want a thriving high street. I don't for one second believe this proposal will threaten that. I suspect no one really does.

[first mate]

I suspect you are wrong.