CPZ in Herne hill

[mango1]

southwark is going to introduce CPZ in all of the Herne hill area, as far as I was aware my neighbours and I all voted against it, but now I see leaflets on lamppost stating that after consulting the residents it will be in place by the end of March. Can anyone help me out here are our public officials servants or overlords

[richard tudor]

You have to remember they will ask for a consultation and ask for votes/survey to be sent via email. They will then take the number of replies and then extrapolate the results to a %

I.e. 5 replies. 3 in favour is 60% in favour, 40% against. Result CPZ wanted.

We had in in our area. When door to door by residents took place no one wanted it. But the replies Southwark had they used to confirm it was wanted.

When the letters and petition was produced they backed down. Even the local Cllr at that time did nothing to help.

But Southwark used the email results as the consultation result.

The same is happening in the Bellenden Road consultation.

Be very careful and remember it is those in the loop that will reply whilst most people do not know and have a living to earn not monitor every Southwark hidden but open consultation.

[minder]

If you mean the North Dulwich and Denmark Hill parking project, we had a letter last November telling us of the outcome.

After the consultation during last May/June there was a 23% response rate after informing all residents and businesses!

59% said yes, 32% said no and 9% were undecided.

The next stage was a Statutory consultation informing people like the emergency services, bus operators, cycling and disability groups and if there's no objections it will go ahead.

We were meant to be told how to apply for permits in January but not heard anything so maybe there's been an objection?

[Melihoople]

Wow! Just 23% response rate... They need better comms.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I love the idea that people take part in a consultation in order to say "I don't know".

Genuinely don't understand why people would want a CPZ. it's not like there will be any fewer cars. You don't get guaranteed parking outside your house - it just makes travelling anywhere more difficult, having guests more difficult and parking more expensive.

personally, I don't think 23% response rate is good enough. Bear in mind that those pushing for a CPZ will all have taken part in the consultation, where as many of those happy with the status quo won't even have been aware of it, sot he results are almost certainly skewed in favour of the 'fors'.

[Earl Aelfheah]

My brother is always amazed (in a good way) when he visits ED, to find that there isn't controlled parking. He can never park near his house in Cricklewood and has to pay a fortune every year to have a permit. It's a nightmare when anyone visits as he has to spend ages trying to purchase visitor passes from Brent's highly unreliable online service. The only people it serves are traffic wardens and the council's finance department.

[Charles Notice]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> I love the idea that people take part in a

> consultation in order to say "I don't know".

>

> Genuinely don't understand why people would want a

> CPZ. it's not like there will be any fewer cars.

> You don't get guaranteed parking outside your

> house - it just makes travelling anywhere more

> difficult, having guests more difficult and

> parking more expensive.

>

> personally, I don't think 23% response rate is

> good enough. Bear in mind that those pushing for a

> CPZ will all have taken part in the consultation,

> where as many of those happy with the status quo

> won't even have been aware of it, sot he results

> are almost certainly skewed in favour of the

> 'fors'.

At last someone who understands how the system works.

In the loop. Sorted.

[????]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> My brother is always amazed (in a good way) when

> he visits ED, to find that there isn't controlled

> parking. He can never park near his house in

> Cricklewood and has to pay a fortune every year to

> have a permit. It's a nightmare when anyone visits

> as he has to spend ages trying to purchase visitor

> passes from Brent's highly unreliable online

> service. The only people it serves are traffic

> wardens and the council's finance department.

This. It's a moneygrab.

[Abe_froeman]

I imagine some people wanted it in north Dulwich as a consequence of increased parking resulting from Lambeth implementing a CPZ in Herne Hill proper. East Dulwich is almost an island of unrestricted parking now and I imagine it won't be too long before we suffer the domino effect and clamour for a CPZ begins here!

[Earl Aelfheah]

This is the problem. creating a CPZ will make little difference to parking availability within the main part of the zone, but will inevitably cause parking problems around it's borders. It's like a huge ever growing pulsating brain that rules from the centre of the Ultraworld.

[mikeb]

not sure there is much of a brain at the centre of this ...

[jlee]

Sorry guys but I live in Herne hill and every day between 12 - 2pm I can't find a place to park, tradesmen, school runner and commuter using dulwich and Herne hill station decend on our road. Having two young children it's not fun having to park miles away from my door and have to ferry them and the shopping home. CPZs they can't come soon enough

[hernehiller]

I agree with Jlee. I voted several years ago against a CPZ and now we have no option but to have it. It DOES have a massive impact on the traffic that comes into the area (se Holmedene road and Ruskin walk). Since the CPZ in Lambeth over the other side of Herne Hill it is impossible to park during the day and not fair, for elderly people and families. Also to note and pointed out by Southwark council 23% was the highest ever for a parking consultation acorns to the council, if you consider how many households own cars and can be bothered to get involved.

The issue we face is many commuters who live further out come and dump the cars on our roads to save on the cost of transport (we are in zone 2) and also people with CPZ park to avoid paying their fee.

Of course it will massively impact Dulwich village and East Dulwich and you will undoubtedly be campaigning for your own CPZ, good luck!

[hernehiller]

This is not true. There was a huge meeting, very well advertised and 90-95% of the people in the meeting wanted the zone. Those that didn't cited the cost generally. There was a huge (typically middle class) outpouring of support for it.

richard tudor Wrote:

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

> You have to remember they will ask for a

> consultation and ask for votes/survey to be sent

> via email. They will then take the number of

> replies and then extrapolate the results to a %

>

> I.e. 5 replies. 3 in favour is 60% in favour, 40%

> against. Result CPZ wanted.

>

> We had in in our area. When door to door by

> residents took place no one wanted it. But the

> replies Southwark had they used to confirm it was

> wanted.

>

> When the letters and petition was produced they

> backed down. Even the local Cllr at that time did

> nothing to help.

>

> But Southwark used the email results as the

> consultation result.

>

> The same is happening in the Bellenden Road

> consultation.

>

> Be very careful and remember it is those in the

> loop that will reply whilst most people do not

> know and have a living to earn not monitor every

> Southwark hidden but open consultation.

[hernehiller]

This is not true. There was a huge meeting, very well advertised and 90-95% of the people in the meeting wanted the zone. Those that didn't cited the cost generally. There was a huge (typically middle class) outpouring of support for it.

richard tudor Wrote:

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

> You have to remember they will ask for a

> consultation and ask for votes/survey to be sent

> via email. They will then take the number of

> replies and then extrapolate the results to a %

>

> I.e. 5 replies. 3 in favour is 60% in favour, 40%

> against. Result CPZ wanted.

>

> We had in in our area. When door to door by

> residents took place no one wanted it. But the

> replies Southwark had they used to confirm it was

> wanted.

>

> When the letters and petition was produced they

> backed down. Even the local Cllr at that time did

> nothing to help.

>

> But Southwark used the email results as the

> consultation result.

>

> The same is happening in the Bellenden Road

> consultation.

>

> Be very careful and remember it is those in the

> loop that will reply whilst most people do not

> know and have a living to earn not monitor every

> Southwark hidden but open consultation.

[hernehiller]

This is not true. There was a huge meeting, very well advertised and 90-95% of the people in the meeting wanted the zone. Those that didn't cited the cost generally. There was a huge (typically middle class) outpouring of support for it.

richard tudor Wrote:

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

> You have to remember they will ask for a

> consultation and ask for votes/survey to be sent

> via email. They will then take the number of

> replies and then extrapolate the results to a %

>

> I.e. 5 replies. 3 in favour is 60% in favour, 40%

> against. Result CPZ wanted.

>

> We had in in our area. When door to door by

> residents took place no one wanted it. But the

> replies Southwark had they used to confirm it was

> wanted.

>

> When the letters and petition was produced they

> backed down. Even the local Cllr at that time did

> nothing to help.

>

> But Southwark used the email results as the

> consultation result.

>

> The same is happening in the Bellenden Road

> consultation.

>

> Be very careful and remember it is those in the

> loop that will reply whilst most people do not

> know and have a living to earn not monitor every

> Southwark hidden but open consultation.

[Earl Aelfheah]

hernehiller Wrote:

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

> Of course it will massively impact Dulwich village

> and East Dulwich and you will undoubtedly be

> campaigning for your own CPZ, good luck!

Nice.

[minder]

But that's what will happen rahrah.

Before Lambeth imposed their CPZ across the road we didn't want the same but fast forward to now and, speaking for myself, I can't wait.

Unfortunately it will push the problem into Dulwich Village and beyond.

[Abe_froeman]

The only good thing that may come out of it is that the council might stop putting ridiculous anti parking measures in everywhere like build outs, double yellow lines, pig sty cycle boxes etc.

[minder]

Looks like this is definitely happening as per a Public Notice in the Southwark News last Thursday.

[Earl Aelfheah]

That's it then. It's only a matter of time before the whole of Soutwark has it's roads privatised. Maybe a good time to become a traffic warden?

[bodsier]

if it's so popular, why is there such an increase of cars parking in uncontrolled areas. To be honest if people oppose it and it is still introduced. Provided they can afford to pay the permit fee,then please just pay it. If you decide to park elsewhere to save the fee, you are just delaying an even bigger expense as you will eventually have to pay for your area, and any other neighbouring area that you visit. The parking companies win . They love it. We are then the losers. Judging by some of the expensive cars that park in unrestricted parking areas, such fees are affordable, They just chose to avoid them. I think it's fair enough if you can't afford the permit price, but if you can, cough up, it's shortsighted to think that you are onto a good thing. You are just pushing the problem out further.

[Ruffler]

We received a letter yesterday saying the CPZ will go live on April 25.

[rupert james]

bodsier Wrote:

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

> if it's so popular, why is there such an increase

> of cars parking in uncontrolled areas. To be

> honest if people oppose it and it is still

> introduced. Provided they can afford to pay the

> permit fee,then please just pay it. If you decide

> to park elsewhere to save the fee, you are just

> delaying an even bigger expense as you will

> eventually have to pay for your area, and any

> other neighbouring area that you visit. The

> parking companies win . They love it. We are then

> the losers. Judging by some of the expensive cars

> that park in unrestricted parking areas, such

> fees are affordable, They just chose to avoid

> them. I think it's fair enough if you can't

> afford the permit price, but if you can, cough up,

> it's shortsighted to think that you are onto a

> good thing. You are just pushing the problem out

> further.

Why is it not possible for residents to have free parking permits?

Answer. Southwark wants to screw every last penny out of residents.

Just remember Southwark spent almost ?500.000.00 0n staff refreshments at Tooley Street and Queens Road over the last 3 years.

[bodsier]

I agree Rupert James, Newham manage to do it, and still focus on the incentive to reduce car usage by charging for the 2nd car only...... Southwark couldn't respond to my question regarding this, their response was that Newham is rural! The borough is poorer, which may have been a consideration, or perhaps they really do want to reduce car usage.....either way, it's a much more considered approach

https://www.newham.gov.uk/Pages/ServiceChild/Resident-parking-permits.aspx#Applyforaresidentparkingpermit