Well, as my admittedly tongue-in-cheek-but-still-valid suggestion got moved to The Lounge in amongst the chat about Word puzzles and the like, I thought I'd paste it again here. It's just a thought....

It seems that the big problem with the CPZs issue is that no one has a clue how things will turn out if they are implemented. Residents off LSL want greater certainty that parking in their own street will be easier, rather than more difficult. Others would like to know whether we can still easily stop off at the butcher's on the way to do the weekly big shop, with similar considerations for the retailers along LSL. Where will the free parking be? Where will the paid bays be? What will the CPZ hours be, etc.? Will total parking decrease significantly?

So wouldn't it be sensible for the Council to publish a proposal for the final CPZ before residents get a say on it? If (say) two thirds of respondents oppose it, then it's completely abandoned. If two thirds support, then it's approved. And between those figures, the deal could be negotiated with some alternative arrangements?

It would be a bit like a... I don't know... People's Vote? If the Council committed to respect the outcome of the vote, it would be difficult to argue about the outcome. I don't think anyone really knows whether ED supports a CPZ in general or not.

Ed26

Isn't that the whole point of this consultation, the public voting on the councils plans and if the majority say no then (hopefully) it won't be implemented , and visa-versa if the majority say yes?

Revenue generation is at the heart of Southwark Council’s proposals for a CPZ in East Dulwich. The proposed area covers a significant number of streets that do not have a parking problem and the promise of economic benefits to the high street is simply not true.

The document that the Council has provided online to support their proposal called ‘Walking and Cycling: the economic benefits’ uses case studies from major cities – San Francisco, Dublin, Los Angeles etc and therefore not a like for like comparison for a local high street like Lordship Lane.

The Association of Town & City Management carried out a study in 2014 called ‘In-Town Parking: What Works?’ and in the summary it states: ‘town centres capable of maximising accessibility via alternative methods to the car can attract, rather than lose, spend. However, this does depend on the dynamics and character of each particular centre with large regional towns/cities and historic centres likely to need to limit cars but mid-sized and small convenience centres relying on spend from motorists’.

Our local high street will not benefit from a CPZ in the way a city town centre would, in fact the opposite is true. Of course locals can walk in but it’s people who live further out who will be deterred. Local businesses, with good reason, are overwhelmingly against the CPZ and need our support to save our vibrant high street.

Regarding the promise that permit holders will benefit from extra available parking space.
In the CPZ pack, the 12 page Information booklet. Page 4:
"What are the advantages of having a parking zone for residents? Evidence from other zones (eg Peckham Road South) has shown a decrease of 40% in parking in residential streets.

Many of us have heard verbal promises that there will be 40% gain in available parking space but that is not what the above written statement actually says. It says “decrease of 40% in parking”.

If, eg, you put double yellow lines on 40% of kerbside in streets currently parked to capacity, you will decrease parking by 40%. I do not know actually what percentage of kerbside parking has been removed by double yellows in Peckham Road South, but they are making extremely misleading claims.

A promise of a benefit in parking for residents is based on an assumption that a big percentage of current parkers are not residents. Is that evidence based? At the business consultation meeting, the powerpoint handout included a map showing "Average number of cars per household" For the East Dulwich CPZ it is 0.71.

The area is mostly terraced houses many of which consist of flats. Therefore, the average number of cars per house is accordingly multiplied, each entitled to a Residents Permit. What therefore is the number of cars per house?

A car parking space is 5.5 Metres. A single fronted Victorian terrace house has a street frontage of about 7 Metres, just over one car parking space.

Asked directly will the Council sell more permits than there are spaces available, the officer first replied "No Yes" (or was it "Yes No"?) then said "well, not initially".

Agreed nutmeg, and that does not contradict what Singalto says Joanna promised at the meeting. "40% more space" does not mean 40% more car parking space. It can mean 40% less car parking space though.

Abe,
Were you responding to my post? Under that same heading "What are the advantages of having a parking zone for residents?" they add:
"Residents of the zone are less likely to get a parking ticket: when the kerbside is full residents have to take such as double-parking, parking in front of a drop kerb or on the footway; all of these stop when there is free kerb space."

Under that heading, it does seem to be a promise of increased parking space available to the permit holders. I've quoted the passage verbatim, including their grammar.

The double yellow lines will certainly stop people parking in front of a dropped kerb, but it is currently legal to do so with the consent of the occupier [Road Traffic Regulation 1984 (Amended) Section 86(3)], so the removal of that freedom is hardly an advantage to residents. I think that goes beyond misleading.

edited to add: I appreciate that there are some residents, eg close to a school, who are plagued by people parking without their consent who would individually wish for double yellow lines. I assume the Council could treat them as individual cases



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was february 08, 10:15pm by MarkT.

Abe_froeman, Joanna said there would be 40% more parking space.

MarkT, I live near a school and watch parents park everywhere and anywhere. Double yellow lines are particularly attractive to them and disabled bays are a real magnet. I don’t think a CPZ would stop them either. In spite of that I don’t want a CPZ.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was february 09, 12:07am by singalto.

I’ve been looking at the document added to the consultation page from the Dulwich Community Council [consultations.southwark.gov.uk] and there are some figures in there about car ownership in the area. Admittedly the slides won’t tell the whole story and there are some in there that aren’t particularly relevant - the Forest Hill CPZ may help with commuters parking for the station but there is free parking around for visitors to the high street but the car ownership figures are specific to East Dulwich:
* East Dulwich Zone 42%
* Dog Kennel Hill Zone 51%
* West Peckham (as the Council call it) Zone 57%

I’m going to stick my head above the parapet here but less than 50% of households in the consultation zone have a vehicle but unless my perception of this 22 page thread (when I wrote this post) is wrong posts from those opposed to the zone due to the impact on their ability to park seem higher than 42%.

There are still a couple of weeks to respond to the consultation - [consultations.southwark.gov.uk] when you do remember its not just a parking zone, the proposed changes could improve air quality and streets for non motorists too.

If you still don’t agree say so. There will be two more opportunities to make your concerns known
1. Report to the Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport and Air Quality Management where the decision will be made to proceed or not. The Cabinet Member Councillor elected by us
2. Statutory consultation Any comments received have to be reviewed

I’ve completed my response to the consultation online [consultations.southwark.gov.uk]

Although you can select the option that you are a visitor to the area an address within the zone is required to move on to the next page. As a non resident in the zone I selected the nearest business to me that I use regularly.

If, having completed the online questionnaire, you provide an email address you will be sent a link to a pdf of your response and have the option to sign up to be advised when the results are published.

An address within the zone is not required. I put visitor and my home post code and was allowed to move on.I do not live within the zone. I asked for bike parking at the Copleston Centre.

Sally Eva Thanks. I'll get in touch with the Council and to make sure my response will be considered as I misunderstood the required fields

Aylwards, you write: "...less than 50% of households in the consultation zone have a vehicle".
I think you've read the Council's figures backwards. The information given is that 42% of households have NO car. Therefore 58% of households DO have a car.

Moving on to a different point from yours, the additional information is that the average number of cars per household is 0.7 - some households have more than one car. A large part of the consultation zone is terraced housing, in which the frontage of a single house is about the length of a single parking space. As many of the houses are divided into flats, ie more than one household per house, would it be unreasonable to estimate the number of cars per single fronted dwelling is closer to 1.0?

That means that all the cars currently occupying kerb space across the consultation zone probably belong to residents, and all would qualify for a residents permit.

The length of kerb available for parking will be considerably reduced with double yellow lines.

The leaflet in the consultation pack - bottom of page 4 states: "Parking will be displaced into nearby uncontrolled roads" That would of course include cars eligible for a permit, but the owners are deferring the time when they will need to purchase it.

Separately, you have asked our Councillor if the views of visitors can be taken into account. Well I think the Council should be open to the views of nearby residents, eg East of Barry Road, who are facing saturation parking, as a direct result of this scheme.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was february 10, 09:48pm by MarkT.

I’ll bet most have driven from a lot nearer than Kent

Sorry for the long post but hopefully constructive

MarkT you are right, I’ve looked at the presentation again and I had taken the numbers the wrong way round. It still seems to me, I’ve not gone back through all the posts but it doesn’t seem that a third don’t mention parking, that posts from those opposed to the zone due to the impact on their ability to park seem higher than 58%.

I agree with your point that in parts of the zone the number of residents cars to frontage is an issue. I’ve included a comment in my response that the issues in the zone differ and I can’t see how one zone will address all issues. If multiple cars in your building is an issue there is an “other” question where you can explain. If have more than one car and can explain why surely that would be useful for the Council to know. If they want to encourage healthier streets understanding why people use their cars will inform improvements to provide viable alternatives. I know having only lived in a single car household my knowledge of why there are households with more is secondhand and the people designing the scheme will have their experience, no way they could have the experience of everyone affected by the zone so how will they understand if it’s not explained?

Re residents adjacent to the zone I’d hope they could fill in the questionnaire as a visitor with their specific concerns and although I’ve raised the concern with Councillors as it affects me. The first sentence of my reason is that this affects “East Dulwich residents who live outside the zone who support traders in the zone
Other East Dulwich residents living outside the area of the zone support businesses in the zone. Without their custom the livelihood of the traders and vibrancy of East Dulwich may well suffer in the ways concerns have been expressed.” If your Councillors and the Champion Hill Councillors support this all visitor views should be taken into account - adjacent residents, commuters who work locally who all have an interest in Lordship Lane which is within the proposed zone.

Whatever the decision there will be some who agree and some who don’t but I’d rather live in a democracy where you can make your views known than a dictatorship.

There’s still time to fill in the consultation online and say yes/no/undecided and raise any concerns specific to you [consultations.southwark.gov.uk] Despite what’s been said on here the Council do listen, even if every proposed change is not agreed. The amount of yellow lines in Grove Park in the Dog Kennel Hill zone was reduced resulting in more parking bays (the Council report says it was due to responses to the consultation). The phrase “Don’t ask, don’t get” comes to mind. A CPZ will restrict parking to marked bays. Do the yellow lines need to be as long as somewhere without bays to stop inconsiderate parking causing access issues at dropped kerbs? I don’t think so and said so in my response.

There are a number of concerns in the posts here. Can you give more background of how a concern will affect you / your road? I was going to email a response but at the dropin I was told the report to the Cabinet Member would be compiled based on the consultation responses and to complete that even if I didn’t complete every question. There are some common concerns that come up on this thread, if common concerns are expressed in the consultation responses there is a chance changes will be made. There is a pdf of the questions, look at them. Do you have reasons for your answer to any? If so explain - which argument would win you over
1 I don’t want to go for a walk
2 I don’t want to go for a walk, it’s too cold. How about we go to the cinema?

There is an older thread somewhere about this, but Southwark is also consulting on its 20 year Movement Plan at the moment, which will set the direction of transport planning across Southwark for many years to come. There are some interesting statements in the context of this separate CPZ consultation:

Quote:

Southwark Council
We are developing a Movement Plan that will set the direction for transport planning in Southwark over the next 20 years – this work will influence the roads you use, the routes you take and the places you spend time in. The Movement Plan takes a people-centred approach, putting the people that live in, work in, and visit the borough at the starting point of our journey. This places fairness at the core of our work.

Quote:

Southwark Council
Reducing traffic
The increase in people and jobs in the borough is placing an increased demand on our streets, in turn creating more congestion. Congestion leads to delay for those using our roads (drivers, bus passengers, cyclists), creates frustration, poor road behaviour, poor air quality as well as noise pollution. Much of the borough suffers from congestion and delay on a daily basis. Therefore, we propose to maintain a focus on decreasing the number of vehicles on our roads as well as improving their emission standard.

Quote:

Southwark Council
Temporary road closures
Timed restrictions or closures of streets to vehicles are not a new approach. Our streets have been regularly closed for street markets since 1880, in the case of East Street Market. More recent forms of timed closures include Play Streets and School Streets. In addition to continuing to deliver play and school streets, we will explore some of our challenging locations. We will look at how to manage space according to who needs it at what time – examples could include commuter or station streets and town centres.

[consultations.southwark.gov.uk]

The consultation closes next week - if you have views about the direction of transport planning in our area then this is an important one to fill in too.

For the sake of the environment, we need to change our lifestyles, which might mean some personal inconvenience and impact on the local shops. Pollution is a massive issue and anything we can do to stop people using their cars must be a good thing.

klove Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For the sake of the environment, we need to change
> our lifestyles, which might mean some personal
> inconvenience and impact on the local shops.
> Pollution is a massive issue and anything we can
> do to stop people using their cars must be a good
> thing.

By making it easier for every house to keep a car?

It’s quiet clearly a money making exercise and not to do with environmental impact as I don’t recall seeing any electric charging points or bays unless I missed them.
Also I wonder if the council have considered the costs of implementing this and maintaining and monitoring the CPZ and the new seating areas.
Also what about those with mobility issues that rely upon their car. As I have first hand experience that unless your on disability benefits it’s really difficult to get a blue badge and parking space unless you have noticeable disabilities ie. limbs missing.

breadcrum45 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Also what about those with mobility issues that
> rely upon their car. As I have first hand
> experience that unless your on disability benefits
> it’s really difficult to get a blue badge and
> parking space unless you have noticeable
> disabilities ie. limbs missing.

You may be interested to know that from this year the regulations make it much easier for those with "hidden" disabilities to get a BB, so if you or someone you know have been knocked back in the past it may be worth reapplying: [leasing.com]

Breadcrum45, they installed an electric charging point in my street in a place where cars won’t be able to park when the extended dropped curb double yellow lines are painted. Re a BB, I was turned down the first time but got it the second time. However I am not ‘disabled enough for a space’!

In my experience applicants are put through the most incredble hoops to get a BB, rather like PIP assessment.

Mine too first mate . I don't think anything about the process can be described as easy .I would be astonished if anything about it had become "much easier " .

Much easier for people with certain "hidden" conditions in the sense that they will at least now be considered rather than ruled out automatically. Just trying to help, I wasn't saying that the process is easy per se.

I should have said that I realised you were trying to be helpful Rendel - I understand your point that a wider range of ppl can now be considered .

But I will still be astonished if anything about the process of getting a Blue Badge has become much easier .

Shall we not have a debate about the semantics of "much easier for ppl with hidden disabilties "v " much easier to apply for a BB " ?