Impending CPZs & Southwark?s Approach To Service Workers And To Local Businesses

[Zak]

Many of us rely on the people working in various local services (eg: schools, health services) and local businesses (shop workers) to run the Peckham West/East Dulwich local economy - which makes it such a good place to live.

Some of them may have no alternative but to travel by car to work, in order to service our community. Public transport has its limits.

However, there seems to be no recognition of their contribution, or their needs, in Southwark?s proposals for granting permits ? which nevertheless allow for up to three permits per domestic household. How will that discourage car usage?

Businesses can only buy permits ?for vehicles essential to their business? (at ?577, which is almost x 4 the cost of residential permits) and there?s no provision for staff needing to commute.

A local councillor at the public meeting on 12th January convened by the Dulwich Society said ? Southwark are absolutely committed to making things better for both residents and the local economy.? Will that happen?

If you share any of these concerns then you might like to raise these issues with Southwark, when you reply to the Consultation.

If they?re really committed to looking after residents, then they should take positive steps to enable the local economy to thrive rather than marginalising it.

It would be terrible if the price of protecting parking for residents and improving the environment were to result in undermining our local services and vibrant local businesses.

[sweetgirl]

I got my consultation pack yesterday. I'm yet to open it!

Just wanted to add I thought exactly as you have above.

Sooner or later all independent stores will disappear due to the high costs to keep them going!

This cpz is a complete farce & just another money making ploy!

They act like its for your benefit but yet the f****** are screwing you over as they always do!

[singalto]

Zak, I agree. I have filled in the consultation and have written my objections on it but also pointed out that they don?t pay any attention to the results of consultations..

[colville09]

I agree with Zak's post. Little consideration is being given to serving the parking needs of the local economy, the small independent shopkeepers, the small workshops and public service workers who are working here. The high price of a parking permit for them will make them unable to continue being here while residents will be able to get up to three permits per household for cars mainly sitting idle. Far from being 'rewarded' for being a non car owning household, we face the prospect of having to buy visitors permits to allow for any repair/ tradespeople to come to do work at our house. We don't add to traffic, pollution and parking by owning a car yet we will have to pay at the same rate as multi car households.

[Ampersand]

?Will no one think of the servants?!?

Possibly the most ridiculous argument so far.

[Hare]

In further confirmation of fears already expressed: a local headteacher from within the East Dulwich side of the consultation has expressed concerns to me about the impact on recruitment since the school has no car spaces and staff rely on street parking.

[jimlad48]

In the toastrack consultation, one local educational site warned parents that it would face closure if staff couldnt park. Today it is still open and succesful. Its hard to take this hysteria seriously.

[Pugwash]

Home Care Workers will need to get their agencies to apply for individual permits - this will affect the availability of care workers if the agencies refuse to apply. This will have an impact on those who rely on daily visits for personal care and practical assistance.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Three permits per household is ridiculous. It should be one maximum (if we have to privatise the streets in this way at all). I think it will be particularly difficult for school teachers, many of whom can't afford to live in the local area.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I personally think there is more justification for people driving into the area to work here than there is for most residents to keep a car on the road (many of whom work in the city). Lot's of the cars on my street barely move (including, I must admit, my own). If we are going to start rationing spaces, why do residents get priority over school teachers, shop workers and carers? The whole idea of some sort of special entitlement to the public highway nearest your house makes no sense to me. The streets are maintained via general taxation and should be a public amenity.

[James Barber]

Hi Pugwash,

I guess CPZ permits could be avoided for Home Care Workers if they time their visits to be outside the hours of operation and the hours of operation were limited.

o you know if the Herne Hill CPZ operating Mon-Fri 12-2pm caused problems for Home Care Workers visiting people there?

[Blameless]

In case anyone, like me, didn't get the package from the council and wants to complete the questionnaire online, here's the link, sourced from a neighbour who did receive it:

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/parking-projects/east-dulwich-parking-study-and-healthier-streets-consultation

[uncleglen]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Three permits per household is ridiculous. It

> should be one maximum (if we have to privatise the

> streets in this way at all). I think it will be

> particularly difficult for school teachers, many

> of whom can't afford to live in the local area.

If two professionals are sharing a flat (out of necessity, given the high cost of rent etc) and both work in different places then 2 cars are probably essential.

[TheArtfulDogger]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Pugwash,

> I guess CPZ permits could be avoided for Home Care

> Workers if they time their visits to be outside

> the hours of operation and the hours of operation

> were limited.

> o you know if the Herne Hill CPZ operating Mon-Fri

> 12-2pm caused problems for Home Care Workers

> visiting people there?

An interesting thought, but for the sake of argument some patients may require visits that are within the restricted hours, diabetics needing insulin or those who require medication at certain times for example, in which case a CPZ that restricts home care workers being able to provide services at critical times could be considered a serious problem for the patients

[Hare]

?The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.?

Please, everyone who has so eloquently written on this and other threads, make your concerns known through the formal consultation process or you may find that your view has not been represented.

?The consultation will identify what appetite there is for controlled parking in different areas. The consultation area is quite big but the results will not be all-or-nothing. In other words, if controlled parking is popular in some areas but not in others then the former can have controlled parking and the latter not.?

Written on this Forum by Cllr James McAsh, 2nd Sept 18.

History suggests that voting silence will be taken as assent.

Thus, in the Dog Kennel Hill CPZ consultation, 14 of 29 streets voted yes but ten voted against; three streets were undecided and there was no response from two further streets. 10+3+10=23 which beats 14. Resulting recommendation: ?To implement a parking zone throughout the whole study area?.

In the so called ?toastrack? area, the decision was implemented on a 57% majority, but that was 57% on an 18% turnout - in other words, just 10.26% of the eligible responders. Yes, a blanket CPZ recommendation based on 10.26% returning a ?yes? vote.

If you want a CPZ in your street, but can see the logic of a different regime elsewhere, then say so and give your reasons. If you don?t want a CPZ anywhere, then say so and give your reasons. If you want blanket coverage, then say so and give your reasons. But just, don?t say it only on an online forum and not get round to formally submitting a response.

This broadcast has been made on behalf of the Street Party and is sponsored by the Edmund Burke Said It First campaign.

(Not really, I just made that up....)

[James Barber]

TheArtfuldogger,

I believe residents can have CPZ permits for such key worker visits. Complication being CPZ permits require stated vehicle registration number - so changes to that could cause problems when temporary cover or holiday cover for the key worker - casework for local councillors.

[MarkT]

James,

"I believe..." is not good enough. Can you quote the rule? Are you saying you believe that the permit for key workers is free?

Care workers are always subject to change - I speak from direct experience. New person, different car, without warning. They might plan to avoid the restricted period, then have to spend more time than they planned with the previous client. Anyway why should the care worker have to avoid visiting at lunchtime, when the client needs lunch. Is the geriatric, confused client with no mobile phone expected to phone for a visitor permit.

Similar for emergency boiler call outs - again personal experience. Some maintenance firms will refuse to come if there are parking restrictions.

[James Barber]

NHS staff are able to get a cross borough permit and lots of extra parking options on top - https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/parking-permits/on-street-permits/health-workers-parking-permits?chapter=2

I would imagine most health workers in Southwark who make home visits will already have one.

[MarkT]

James,

do you also imagine that this applies to all non-NHS care workers? The NHS does not cover all care needs, and it certainly does not cover emergency boiler repairs.

[goldilocks]

Interesting point re emergency boiler repairs refusing to come - and not in line with my experience from a CPZ for 15 years. Sometimes people 'huff slightly' re parking restrictions, but generally they just add the cost of the parking to the job (and we're talking less than a tenner in general on a job that will cost significantly more than that!)

The points around care workers etc are valid concerns and ones that where relevant should be flagged in the consultation response. I'd say that boiler repairs is more of a red herring as the vast swathes of London where CPZs already exist are not sitting shivering in unheated houses, unable to service or repair their central heating!

[Pugwash]

Hi Pugwash,

I guess CPZ permits could be avoided for Home Care Workers if they time their visits to be outside the hours of operation and the hours of operation were limited.

o you know if the Herne Hill CPZ operating Mon-Fri 12-2pm caused problems for Home Care Workers visiting people there?

James, the info pack state that approved home care agencies may have a maximum of 5 permits only. Whilst many home care workers use public transport, others rely on their cars. In the summer I was informed that rehab support workers working for Southwark and NHS had been informed that they would be required to pay towards their parking permits - given that care workers are relatively low paid, this would have caused considerable hardship. Not sure how this was resolved. Care Plans operate from around 7.30/8 am until around 9 pm 7 days a week plus all bank holidays- in some cases it is essential that specific care has to be given at set times i.e those taking Parkinson Disease medication have to administer it at certain times and should not be varied as will impact on the management of the condition. Regardless whether a paid carer, or relative coming in specifically at these times to administer medication - costs of permits would deter visits being made.

Whilst Barry Road does have parking problems - many multi occupied premises (sometimes 5/6 flats in one house) and one car per flat - CPZ will not make any difference in my opinion.

[Jacqui5254]

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> Interesting point re emergency boiler repairs

> refusing to come - and not in line with my

> experience from a CPZ for 15 years. Sometimes

> people 'huff slightly' re parking restrictions,

> but generally they just add the cost of the

> parking to the job (and we're talking less than a

> tenner in general on a job that will cost

> significantly more than that!)

Yes, but right now NO-ONE has to 'add on a tenner' as we don't have a CPZ.

I don't understand why all these extra ???s are being bandied about in such a casual way. A lot of people do not have spare money to be used for things they don't currently pay for.

An extra tenner to add on for workmen [and are you going to be happy to pay for them to come and give you a quote?]

?125 residents permits.

?2.75 an hour parking bay [?3.25 if diesel].

Visitors permits..

?10.30 - groups of 10 (1 hour) permits

?1.55 - individual 1 hour permit

Five hour permits

?20.60 - groups of 10 (5 hour) permits

?2.58 - individual 5 hour permit

All day permits

?5.15 - individual all day permit

?25.75 - 10 all day permits (purchased within any 12 month period)

?46.35 - additional permits (max 100 per resident), purchased within one year of buying your first 10 after 12 months, you'll qualify for the discounted price

?85 instant fine for misdemeanors.

So let's not gloss over the financial implications for us all.

[James Barber]

Hi MarkT,

Care Workers can also have Southwark wide parking permits - https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/parking-permits/on-street-permits/home-care-workers-parking-permits

Cost is ?125 and if they have any clients already in an existing CPZ they'll already have one already and these permits are transferable between carers.

Hi Pugwash,

5 interchangeable permits. If that number isn't right for an organisation then they should seek help from a councillor to get the number changed.

[first mate]

Not all careworkers though, only some. The system as outlined in the link seems to support businesses and agencies involved with care not those individuals who might have the additional stress of caring for a loved one as well as working, or even caring for a loved one full time.

[Earl Aelfheah]

So if we're going to create a hierarchy in terms of who 'deserves' use of the public highway most - why do residents come at the top of that list? Is it more 'legitimate' for me to use the street to store a car outside my house, than for a teacher to use it for getting to work? CPZs seem to be predicated on there being an 'entitlement' on the part of residents to exclusive, or at least priority use of the bit of road outside their house. I thought the roads were paid for through general taxation as a public amenity? Rather than discussing the particulars, can someone explain the principle first?