One hour free parking in the area...

[TheArtfulDogger]

Consultation closes on 9th Feb.

Last chance to have your say http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200140/parking_projects/3654/one_hour_free_parking_in_local_shopping_parades

[first mate]

The first question, "do you support the principle of 1 hour free parking, yes or no" made me wary of filling out the form. I just don't trust the council to use the info honestly. If you start to look at all the various pages detailing plans in the area it is clear that they are attempting to introduce restricted parking all over the place.

What can be done to intervene and stop this happening? The consultation form is worded in such a way that it could easily be skewed.

[James Barber]

Hi P68,

You don't know me very well.

Hi first mate,

The 1 hour restricted parking proposal is a borough wide proposal. It is in no way responding to any particular scheme but in response to requests from businesses, business forums across Southwark.

As a result it is being decided as a strategic decision and regretably not subject to the normal local councillor scutiny and decision making.

Changing 30 min parking to 1 hour I think should be fine. You can never be sure you'll get a even a simple task done in 30 mins - you just need a queue in the Post Office. 60 mins though gives more confidence this won't be a problem. SO I don't expect it to reduce by very much the available parking slots - mathematically it obviously has the potentially to half the available parking slots. But practically I don't think it will make much difference.

BUT turning totally unrestricted parking into 1 hour restricted parking will totally change the balance between residents and businesses and I'm against this aspect. For example this is proposed on North Cross Road outside peoples homes for no good reason that I can discern.

In writing officers have said to me they have no evidence that these changes will help businesses and that it is purely a politcal decision.

So do you think Labour are right or wrong?

[Penguin68]

Hi P68,

You don't know me very well.

Ah, that would be in reference to my saying " I am sure that if he is aware of manipulation to change the game he will wish to resist it, going, as it does, against the wishes of a significant majority of electors polled at the time "

I had thought that I did know you well enough to assume that, but, in your own words, obviously not. Hey ho

[James Barber]

Nope P68.

It was "His interest in such council minutiae one would expect to evaporate should he be successful in a wider constituency."

[first mate]

Hi James, on this issue, for this ward, I think the attempts to change unrestricted parking into areas of restricted parking is totally wrong and as the councillor representing ED And its voters I would hope you will resist those changes as hard as you can, even if it is Borough wide and strategic.

[geh]

Don't really understand those who claim not to be able to find spaces. I live in the middle of it, even on the busiest of weekend there's allways a space within a road or two. Allways! Perhaps some people aren't very good at parking?

This looks like a CPZ precursor, and having lived within several in London it's the last thing I would want to see in ED!

[mikeb]

James - am I correct in understanding your post above to say that as a "strategic" and "political" manner, this proposal is not subject to normal councillor or administrative oversight? If so then what can stop this undemocratic and half-baked proposal?

Thanks

Mike

[@Woodwarde]

Southwark parking review - some feedback made directly to Southwark and copied to Councillors.

I would like to complain about the current consultation on the Southwark website which is not clear and therefore not fit for purpose as a Consultation.

I would like this consultation to be reissued with the different scenarios separated out and so made clearer, alongside the supporting evidence for the individual changes at the various (45) locations.

Some of my reasons are listed below:

[www.southwark.gov.uk]

The map and consultation summary provided is misleading and so cannot be used as the basis for consultation.

1. In many cases, the suggestion on the surface, purports to change 1/2 hour free parking to 1 hour free parking. No mention is made of the Mon-Fri change - to Monday-Sat. In those cases, the introduction of restrictions on Saturday is a much more significant change that has not been properly advised nor made clear on the consultation documents.

2. It is confusing and not transparent to include within this consultation both changes to timings for existing restricted bays with unrestricted bays becoming restricted. These could be made far clearer and would allow for objective input if separated out. No detail is provided on the assumed impact of these changes.

3. There is no evidence provided for the individual areas and why this change may be necessary in all 45 cases.

4. In some areas such as Dulwich Village, this may push commuter parking, possibly teachers, onto surrounding roads and no modelling of this is given or assumptions made in terms of displacement. It is also unclear on p56 for Dulwich Village, if this becomes parallel parking. If so, what is the assumed loss of spaces and the impact of parallel parking on that stretch of the road.

5. For Lordship Lane, the mix of timings is not consistent, some ending at 7pm, some at 6.30pm and some at 4pm and these differences are not explained nor the displacement effect quantified.

6. The input form drop down selection and associated comment box will not allow adequate input. For example people will park at any of the bays on Lordship Lane as might be available at the time of parking and the form allows input only for the individual bays, which is unrepresentative of normal parking patterns and prevents objection to the whole.

7. The consultation form does not provide details for an alternative mechanism of response to Southwark (for example, an email address) to permit more comprehensive responses.

8. There is no explanation of the selection of one hour free parking periods over for example limited parking over the lunchtime period as works for Herne Hill at present and which may not need or benefit from the change.

These are a number of observations but more than sufficient to indicate that the consultation as issued is flawed and unfit for purpose.

I would appreciate the support of Councillors copied here and a reply from Southwark parking.

[first mate]

I was wondering if James Barber had hears anything more about this?

[James Barber]

No, first mate I haven't. I've been involved in an exchange with officers who are celarly happy everything is in order.

But further opportunities to formnally object ot Traffic Management Orders which will initiate another cycle and opportunity to object/improve the proposals.

[@Woodwarde]

I have spoken to Southwark parking this morning on 02075252021 number.

The consultation is progressing and the view expressed is that the form is the best that can be achieved given the limitations of technology. The changes are believed to be clearly indicated.

The one hour proposal (one size fits all) is a manifesto item and also therefore a Strategic project.

It goes therefore as an IDM to the Cabinet Member (presumably Mark Williams) for decision and that decision would be subject to call in (ie it could be referred for scrutiny if so requested within 5 days of the decision.

I was advised that local businesses and residences within 50m radius of each parking area would have received a letter to their postal address with the consultation document. That is worth pursuing if you were not notified.

[first mate]

@Woodwarde,

thanks. That last point is in itself ridiculous. Changes to unrestricted parking will affect everyone living in the area. It is not as though the only people using LL or Dulwich Village are those at a distance of 50m from the parking. The areas serve the local community.

May I ask, once this decision goes to the Cabinet member for decision, who would be able to call it in? Also does 5 days means 5 working days?

[first mate]

Hi James,

Thank you. Since you are probably much more aware of process than are we, and of the most likely routes to get a change on these proposals, could you advise the likelihood of getting a 'result' by waiting for the next cycle and TMO's?

Additionally, as per Woodwarde's email above, will you challenge the proposals after going as an IDM to the Cabinet Member, within the 5 day limit?

[@Woodwarde]

From the Southwark Website. If I am reading below correctly, then the Cabinet Member has to announce 5 days before a decision that one is about to be made. Again, if I am reading this correctly, once the decision is made, there are 5 days to refer it to the Scrutiny committee. I am sure one of the Councillors can confirm this!

A bit on the Scrutiny committee here:

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200494/how_we_work/3161/scrutiny_committees

NOTE they do not consider individual complaints

And then also from the website a bit more detail (not so easy to find):

How individual decision making works (IDM)

What is individual decision making?

Individual cabinet members are able to take decisions on areas that fall within their responsibility in much the same way that decisions are taken by the cabinet as a whole.

How are decisions published?

Under council's constitution, all key decisions taken by individual cabinet members are listed on the forward plan. Council publishes key decisions on the website five working days before the individual cabinet member can consider the decision (publishing period).

You can view individual cabinet member decisions online, including details of the decisions, their status and copies of any relevant reports.

Most of the decisions taken by individual cabinet members are subject to a five working day call-in period. During this time the overview and scrutiny committee reviews decisions.

Expressing your views about a decision

Members of the public may make representations during the publishing period either directly to the individual cabinet member or by contacting the responsible officer. You can do this by clicking on the link that can be found on the individual cabinet member's web page.

[@Woodwarde]

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50004906&Opt=0

See above link.

I see that Tim Walker seems to be the person responsible for managing the consultation at Southwark and here is the format for an IDM for one that finished on the 3rd Feb and that could have been 'called in'.

I will enquire about dates for the current consultation and its timeframe for call in.

[MarkT]

@Woodwarde, your link is not to an IDM but to a Community Council Decision.

If Peckham and Nunhead Community Council can decide on parking issues within their patch, why cannot Dulwich Community Council do likewise?

MarkT

[@Woodwarde]

Yes, that is odd - not clear why one is Strategic and one is not.

Perhaps one of the Councillors can reply.

[mockingbird]

http://www.southwarklabour.co.uk/upload/docs/Southwark%20Labour%202014%20Manifesto.pdf

the Southwark Labour Manifesto

See slide 6

Southwark Labour: Delivering a fairer future for all?? by building a strong local

economy

Southwark is a borough of growth and opportunity: a great place to do business, and to work. We

will support 5,000 local people into jobs and create 2,000 new apprenticeships over the next 4

years. We want to make sure that Southwark residents are at the front of the queue to get them.

We will make sure that our young people are ready for work; we will guarantee that every school

leaver has something to do whether training, education or a job.

Small shopping parades rely on local and passing

trade. We will provide an hour?s free parking in our

shopping parades to help you shop locally.

This is the manifesto promise. Pretty open ended on parking so how does this translate?

Bringing parking to those shopping areas that do not have parking?

Bringing all shopping parking to an hour (what if it was 1/2 hour or 2 hours before)?

Reducing the number of existing parade parking spaces? clearly not - the promise is to protect.

Making residential parking more shopping parking? clearly not

So now we can see just how Southwark are using a vague and undefined piece of manifesto propaganda to justify specific and loosely consulted sweeping changes.

Remember 45 locations - all with very different starting conditions.

I smell a poorly performing Council trying to justify its manifesto achievements in time for an election.

But I could be understating things....

[first mate]

James, I was wondering if there was any more news on this consultation?

[@Woodwarde]

Sorry - this is a lengthy post but provides the answers to questions put to Southwark as mentioned earlier on the thread. May be of interest.

Sent: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:07

Subject: RE: FAO TW : One hour free parking in local shopping parades

Thank you for your emails and apologies for the delay in my response. My reply provides response to your questions (10/2) and (19/2).

Q1 In many cases, the suggestion on the surface, purports to change 1/2 hour free parking to 1 hour free parking. No mention is made of the Mon-Fri change - to Monday-Sat. In those cases, the introduction of restrictions on Saturday is a much more significant change that has not been properly advised nor made clear on the consultation documents.

The consultation packs (letter and drawing) made our proposals clear. The covering letter included a list of bullet points summarising the changes and each drawing had text boxes that annotated the specific location of the proposed changes. Those text boxes gave details, where relevant, of any proposals to amend the times or days of operation.

Q2 It is confusing and not transparent to include within this consultation both changes to timings for existing restricted bays with unrestricted bays becoming restricted. These could be made far clearer and would allow for objective input if separated out. No detail is provided on the assumed impact of these changes.

The project objective is to secure the availability of short-term on-street parking at small retail parades as a means of supporting local businesses. Some of the in-scope parades have existing pay and display, others have 20 or 30 minute free parking, others have yellow lines, others are unrestricted. There are also a variety of operational times and days.

It is normal in parking schemes to consult upon the type of parking, the layout of bays and the times of operation. As mentioned above, the exact proposals for each bay were clearly labelled on the drawings issued and the consultation document provided opportunity to comment on this. I therefore disagree that this was confusing.

At this stage, we don?t know exactly what impact the proposals may have. As parking is not a pure science and human behaviour plays a huge part, post-implementation monitoring for traffic schemes is usually the best approach, if this is considered necessary. An overview of impact was provided in the Community impact statement in the consultation scope report presented to community council and the Cabinet member.

Q3 There is no evidence provided for the individual areas and why this change may be necessary in all 45 cases.

In some areas such as Dulwich Village, this may push commuter parking, possibly teachers, onto surrounding roads and no modelling of this is given or assumptions made in terms of displacement. It is also unclear on p56 for Dulwich Village, if this becomes parallel parking. If so, what is the assumed loss of spaces and the impact of parallel parking on that stretch of the road.

Before going out to consultation, we consulted with each community council on whether or not we had identified the correct 45 locations. Some community councils made changes to the list of parades (Dulwich did not) that officers had identified during an initial scoping exercise. You can read about this scoping process in the ?Project Scope? section of the report to Dulwich Community Council on 4 December http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=176&MId=4837&Ver=4

As mentioned above, an overview of impact was provided in the Community impact statement in the consultation scope report presented to community council and the Cabinet member.

In regards to Dulwich Village, the proposal is to provide parallel parking. Currently the arrangement is informal (ie no road markings) but motorists choose to park at an angle. This isn?t actually lawful and doesn?t reflect how the inset parking bay was designed. We were unable to keep the echelon (angled parking) because the reversing manoeuvre is dangerous into a cycle lane and at the approach to the traffic signals. The proposal would reduce the capacity of the bay from 17 to 10 spaces. However, with the introduction of a time limit, this would increase the minimum number of parking slots per day from 17 to 100 (10 spaces x 10 hrs of operation).

Q4 For Lordship Lane, the mix of timings is not consistent, some ending at 7pm, some at 6.30pm and some at 4pm and these differences are not explained nor the displacement effect quantified.

Where the parking bays on Lordship Lane are situated within a bus lane, we need to link the hours of operation together, ie parking cannot be allowed when a bus lane is in operation.

Lordship Lane has an existing bus lane that operate:

? Monday to Friday 7-10am (northbound)

? Monday to Friday 7-10am and 4-7pm (southbound)

This means that parking must be banned during the peak hours; hence those bays end at either 4pm or 7pm during the week.

The side roads parking bays have existing operational times of Mon ? Sat 8.30-6.30pm.

We have proposed that controls operate on a Saturday on Lordship Lane, as they already do on the side roads. We have recommended that the hours on LL match those existing bays on the side roads. This would ensure consistency - on a Saturday ? so that all short-term visitor bays around LL operate at the same times.

This does mean different start/end times, in the same parking place, depending on the whether it is a weekday or a Saturday. However, we think this is a much better option, with less impact upon residents, then being having Saturday controls that match the weekday times (eg. on Saturdays between 7am and 7pm).

Q5 The input form drop down selection and associated comment box will not allow adequate input. For example people will park at any of the bays on Lordship Lane as might be available at the time of parking and the form allows input only for the individual bays, which is unrepresentative of normal parking patterns and prevents objection to the whole.

The form allows for respondents to give input about defined parades, not individual parking bays. The consultation across the borough was broken down into 44 defined parades and views sought on a number of parking changes at each parade. In terms of Lordship Lane we identified three separate parades

? Location: P95 ? Lordship Lane (between Zenoria Street and Blackwater Street)

? Location: P96 ? Lordship Lane (adjacent to Landell?s Place)

? Location: P98 ? Lordship Lane (outside St Thomas More?s RC church)

We considered that these 3 areas were logically grouped and have different characteristics in terms traffic and parking.

Respondents were able to respond to more than one parade by filling in a form for each location. Alternatively, they could have selected "other- please specify" and told us about a geographic area (eg. all borough, all Dulwich, all in the Lordship Lane area etc.)

Q6 The consultation form does not provide details for an alternative mechanism of response to Southwark (for example, an email address) to permit more comprehensive responses.

The form does not have contact details on it because it is expected that once you have reached the form, you are wanting to fill in that form. However, the consultation pack that was posted out contained email and phone details, as did the street notices installed at each parade, and also on the council's parking projects http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200140/parking_projects/2766/local_parking_amendments landing page which gives details about all live parking projects.

Q7 There is no explanation of the selection of one hour free parking periods over for example limited parking over the lunchtime period as works for Herne Hill at present and which may not need or benefit from the change .

The consultation stems from the council's Fairer Future promises that was to "deliver an hours free parking in our shopping parades".

In regard to Herne Hill, this area has a parking zone that operates Mon ? Fri Noon to 2pm in residential streets. However, the short-term parking bays in front of shops (eg. Half Moon Lane) and within this zone, operate throughout the day (8.30-6.30pm). This is necessary to ensure turn-over of space throughout the day. If those bays operated for just two hours per day you would find that the bays were fully occupied during the uncontrolled hours, which would prevent customers for stopping and parking close by.

A. could you also explain simply for me the next stages about IDM and call in, together with timings for both and when the TMO is scheduled to run. I am trying to see the complete picture and timetable.

You can read about how individual decision making works here. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200494/how_we_work/3158/how_individual_decision_making_works

The timetable of "what happens next" is on the webpage here http://www.southwark.gov.uk/onehourparking which we will update as the project moves forward.

B. Could you please send me via email, a copy of the consultation documents that went out through the post together with the details of the addresses mailed.

Letters for Lordship Lane attached. Mailing list attached.

C. why do the Peckham and Nunhead Community Council decide on parking issues within their patch, why cannot Dulwich Community Council do likewise? (http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50004906&Opt=0)

Who takes decisions is defined by Part 3 of the Council Constitution http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200494/how_we_work/375/councils_constitution, it is not related to geographic area.

As mentioned in my answer to Q3 above, Dulwich Community Council considered a report in December that was very similar to the Peckham and Nunhead example you give.

Finally, and to confirm what I said when we spoke, your comments along with all other feedback received will be included in the report to the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Transport.

Yours sincerely

[mikeb]

This is the key part that explains the 'logic' behind the proposition that "more parking restrictions increases parking opportunity". If true then it would require that the cars that are currently parked on unrestricted roads are generally there all day - wonder if there has been any analysis of this?

>>However, with the introduction of a time limit, this would increase the minimum number of parking slots per day from 17 to 100 (10 spaces x 10 hrs of operation).>This is necessary to ensure turn-over of space throughout the day. If those bays operated for just two hours per day you would find that the bays were fully occupied during the uncontrolled hours, which would prevent customers for stopping and parking close by. <<

[first mate]

James Barber, charlie Smith, Rosie shimell,

Can you tell us if in the course of planning/consultation this kind of analysis has been done?

[spider69]

"Drivers will get 10 minutes' grace before being fined if they stay too long in council-owned car parks in England, the government has announced."

The new leeway, expected to take effect later this month, will apply to free and paid-for parking spaces both on streets and in off-street car parks.

Can you comment on whether Southwark will be complying particularly in regard to the Peckham/Holly Grove dropoff.

Bearing in mind the last thread on this money generation camera

[@Woodwarde]

NEW POLICY AFFECTING PARKING - from Turney and Burbage Res Association website. More consultation , less local awareness, more impact for Dulwich..............

New policy on road markings adjacent to crossovers

Response from Southwark Council to Member enquiry from Cllr Jane Lyons regarding the proposed implementation of double yellow lines adjacent to crossovers to private drives.

Our Reference: 495472

Dear Councillor Lyons

Thank you for your enquiry dated 9 February 2015 in which you requested information regarding the policy on road markings adjacent to crossovers on behalf of your constituent Mr Ian McInnes (Chair of the Dulwich Society).

The council has three Design Standards that are pertinent to your enquiry:

??DS 002 Yellow line and blip waiting road markings

??DS 007 H-Bar markings

??DS 114 Highway Visibility

I can summarise these standards as follows, the council:

??will not install any new white H-Bar markings and will remove existing features as opportunity arises (eg. road resurfacing or a highway project)

??will apply double yellow lines across new vehicle crossovers

??will extend those double yellow lines for a length not less than 2 metres beyond the extent of the crossover (length will depend upon road classification)

For clarity, these policies mostly concern themselves with new crossovers. For the reasons given below, we do plan to remove existing H-Bars as opportunity arises but these will not be replaced by yellow lines unless a specific need is identified (and any new yellow lines will be subject to consultation). I note Mr McInnes?? concern that double yellow lines remove some flexibility about house owners allowing friends etc to park in front of their existing drive.

Historically H Bar markings were placed on streets as the council did not have the power to enforce against vehicles which were parked over a dropped kerb. The council now has the power to enforce such illegal parking. As such, the council considers the advisory H-bar to be an unnecessary road marking that brings little benefit. Most dropped kerbs are very obvious and therefore do not require additional signage to point them out. Consequently, the Council has ceased the installation of H-bar markings and now undertakes a policy of removing the existing markings when practicable.

For residents that are concerned that their driveway will be blocked in the absence of an ??H bar??, the council will take enforcement action against vehicles that block access, however this service requires the explicit ??opting in?? from the resident concerned. More details of this policy and how to request the service can be found here.

In respect of Mr McInnes?? question about consultation, the Southwark Streetscape Design Manual (SSDM) was approved by Individual Decision by the relevant Cabinet Member in December 2012 after a public consultation and Equality Impact Assessment. The approved structure authorises the Head of Public Realm to agree individual design standards via the council??s scheme of delegation. The three standards you are enquiring about (DS. 002, 007 and 114) were approved in May and December 2013.

Should you have any questions about this response please do not hesitate to contact me on 02075252021 or email [email protected].

Yours sincerely,

Tim Walker

Senior Engineer

Tooley St ?C Third Floor, Hub 1

PO Box 64529

London

SE1P 5LX

[email protected]