Bobby P

Galileo Wrote: > > I do the school run along this road twice a day > and have been counting spaces. Mornings around 9am > there are around 5-6 spaces on the whole stretch, > by 3pm there are generally a couple, but fewer. I > often try to park on Tell Grove and find it full. > I?m not sure we live in the same place at all > Bobby P. Regardless of our differing views, once > the medical centre (capacity up to 500 people on > site at once - 22 parking spaces) and school > (can?t remmebr but from memmory around 11 parking > spaces) go live, then it would seem likely that > any spare spaces will be used. Tell is fuller than Melbourne, certainly, being shorter - but is simply my first place to look on the odd occasion that no spaces exist outside my house. I live on the stretch of Melbourne between Ashbourne and ED Grove - and I can only tell you the truth, that since moving here in 2003, I've never had to park more than a couple of minutes' walk away, and mostly can park outside the house (at all times of day). Let's see what happens when Medical Centre and School open. If there is a sudden glut of extra cars and less space, then we will see, but none of us are prophets. Right now, though, with a typical 4/5 spaces free mid-afternoon as I peer out of my window, I really can't agree that change is necessary.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Bobby P, > The new CPZ being installed just after the local > elections to the north of East Dulwich railway > line will add parking pressures to the south. You > assume everyone can or wants to walk for 10mins > 2/3 mile. People tell me on the doorstep it means > they can;t leave the area by car in the daytime > without having to park some distance away. That's > perhaps fine for you and me. But if you have a > real need and mobility issues yourself or your > dependents then you either move or don't go out or > use taxis if you can afford them. And these > behaviours appear ot be so non local residents can > park near a station and largely car commute - > presumably from another place that has a station > with more expensive ticket prices not in zone 2. Sorry, James, but if people have serious mobility issues, they can of course get a designated disabled space outside their home. No one is objecting to that, but you are being amusingly disingenuous here (you are politically obliged to force CPZs on the whole area, as that's LibDem policy: it's mad ideology over practical reality). Because some people are seriously disabled, the WHOLE area has to be zoned? This is nonsense, entirely political, and you know it. (And I have never, ever had to park more than a couple of minutes' walk away in 15 years of living here, near the junction of Melbourne/Ashbourne - not once, anything even approaching 10 mins' walk away: there are 5 places currently available as I look out of the window at 3.30pm - which is typical).

Again, why don't those who say they are having difficulty parking on roads near the station simply park on roads just south of ED Grove? Plenty of space on Melbourne, Tell Groves etc. at all times of day. There always have been. The suggestion that a CPZ should be put in place for anyone within 10 minutes walk of the station (as mentioned by one poster above) would be an enormous swathe of roads, and is clearly not warranted. Down Melbourne South here, still just 5 minutes walk from station - no parking issue on this road.

Still no.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Crawthew Grove, Frogley Road, Archdale Road, > > > Crystal Palace Road, North Cross Road, > Nutfield > > > Road, Spurling Road, Matham Grove.. that's > just > > > for starters! > > I live around that area, and I rarely have a > problem parking, even despite all the skips and > tradespeople. > > Maybe two or three times in a year I have to park > in an adjacent road, but it isn't a big deal > unless I have heavy stuff to unload, and then I > either double park whilst I unload it, or unload > it later when I can park outside my house. Interesting to have the view of someone who lives there on these particular roads, where others some claim a 'problem'. I can't help but wonder if their tolerance for the realities of urban living is just much smaller, eg. not being able always to park right near their front door constitutes an inconvenience worthy of drastic action. It's just interesting how, on exactly the same roads, some people (such as Sue here) have clearly described their parking norm and believe that most people would reasonably infer from her description no issue, whereas others perceive it differently (but so far without describing exactly what issues they face that they think are aberrant). Does anyone conceive of Sue's description (also my experience on Melbourne) as a serious parking issue requiring a CPZ? If so, then we are clearly looking at very different standards of tolerance.

worldwiser Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The 'hell' you speak of is how most Londoners > live. I fail to see how the good people of ED > wouldn't cope along with them. But my question would be: why on earth should we, when most of us have no problem parking at all and don't want to add all these hassles and expenses to our daily lives? I had similar experiences to those listed above when I lived under a CPZ. While making no difference to parking, it added major extra stress in all sorts of situations, and wasted considerable time challenging unfair parking tickets etc. (usually successfully, but only after having to go and retrieve the car from the pound, pay for the privilege, and harangue the head of the Council for weeks on end with letter after letter). Honestly, asking to live under a CPZ is akin to being a turkey voting for Christmas. Those who haven't experienced this particularly pernicious form of urban aggravation should at least consider the many stories of those who actually have, before they usher in a permanent and irreversible regime they (and anyone else they catch in their net) can never escape from.

jimlad48 Wrote: > An observation I would make is many opponents who > dont often seem to have problems parking tend, on > further discussion, to leave very early and come > home very late. The situstion is a bit different > for everyone else during tbe rest of the day. Not in my case, as I work all sorts of different hours. As I stated in a post above, there are/were multiple spaces on Melbourne during the daytime 8-6pm - frankly usually more than in the evenings. On some other roads, your mileage may vary (no pun intended). But I'm not making this up. I've lived here for 15 years and it has always been thus. It's not a perception but a verifiable fact. Which is why, I suppose, I react strongly against people telling me I am experiencing a problem when I am not, or advocating for me to pay extra for something that already works fine, thank you, in its current (free) form. If those campaigners would volunteer to pay my CPZ bills, inevitable occasional fines and all, then that would be awesome. But instead they advocate that I and my neighbours hand over a lot more of our money to the Council each year for no additional benefit - and it's hard to fathom what motivates them, since parking on our road doesn't affect them in the least.

worldwiser Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think people have been at considerable pains to > insist they don't expect to park outside their own > house. They merely expect to be able to park > within perhaps a 10m walk which is often > impossible I've given a few examples of a 'worst option' on Melbourne Grove (2 mins walk at the very most in the worst conditions, even in the busy stretch near the station, since spaces are available just S. of ED Grove). Are there really roads where you have to park a full 10 min walk away? That's a very long distance (probably almost 3/4 mile if I go by Google Maps, which is always conservative on walking times). I'm genuinely interested to know which roads these are in ED, if people want to share their experiences.

bels123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > it very much depends on what time > of the day you are trying to park and your > personal circumstances as to whether you > experience the parking and congestion issues close > to the station. It?s only since being at home > during the day with children that I?ve realised > how congested our roads are and how difficult it > is to park during working day hours. If you are > away from home working for most of the day I can > understand how it lead to a very different > experience - Melbourne Grove (north) is quite a > different road in evenings/weekends versus 8-6pm, > with a fair few spaces once commuters have left. That is probably true. However, Melbourne Grove South (and I mean the stretch literally just south of ED Grove, so just seconds' walk from most Melbourne Grove N. houses) typically has plenty of places during 8-6pm. Today, as this thread was hot, I made a point of looking mid-afternoon, and there were at least 10 spaces near the junction where Melbourne N. residents could park if it were busy during commuter hours on their stretch. So come and join us in parking nirvana, North Melbourners: you are seriously very welcome, and parking here, you almost on your doorstep. Better that than impose restrictions, where neither will you be able to park on our stretch nor we on yours, and everyone is paying for a piece of pseudo-private road where parking is still not guaranteed.

milk76 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am happy for you Bobby, either you have been > very fortunate or you have a high threshold for > your definition of a parking problem. > > My friend Tina, on Melbourne, has to park on > neighbouring streets often when she returns during > daylight hours. She has on occasion had to park by > my place which is a hell of a long walk with bags > and a buggy. It is these daytime driving locals, > often women with children, who suffer the most > from weekday commuter parking strains. As a full > time working man, who uses the train to comute, I > am less often affected as I drive mostly on call > at night or at weekends. For at home partners it > is a very real problem. Also for the elderly and > those with some physical limitations. It is indeed hard to gauge people' threshold for tolerance of parking in an inner city area, which I think is part of the issue here. I can say this about Melbourne: - I've lived there since 2003. I have seen no change in parking difficulty, it's remained pretty much the same, despite increased yellow lines and other markings creeping in over the years. - I don't expect to be able to park directly outside my house, though I most often I can park no more than 20 yards away). - When this isn't possible (maybe 20% of the time), I can park on the bottom of Tell Grove, Ashbourne, or occasionally further south on Melbourne. This then would be a maximum walk of 2 minutes to my door, even with heavy shopping or other luggage (which I often have). - If that is the threshold that others find inconvenient - and I indeed deal with highly immobile parents visiting, who thankfully can park for free still, as well as children - then no, it's fair to say I don't share their threshold for pain. I would consider this part and parcel of making a choice to live in a densely populated urban area rather than outlying suburbia or the countryside. - Finally, having experienced it at my previous address in a similar relatively affluent area of London, I don't empirically believe that a fully zoned ED will be easier to park in ultimately for residents. CPZ is not the policy that will finally solve the volume of cars problem, certainly not in this area. For that you will need something much more radical, but as so often with public policy, the stick seems to be imposed before the carrot is even thought about.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The success of your model seems in part to depend > on the notion that streets will be quieter with > CPZ because drivers ( the builders and commuters > you refer to) will go and park elsewhere, on the > streets with no CPZ. What happens when everywhere > is CPZ, are you absolutely sure all the streets > will still be quieter? Yes, that is exactly why this was defeated last time. Mission creep from the zoned areas impacting the ones next door. But Council policy is to push for zoning in smaller and smaller areas in the hopes that parking displacement does occur and the neighbouring road (who had no issues before) will later petition for a CPZ. Right now, I can park on my road and if necessary on an adjacent road a few yards down, and so there is flexibility for all cars to find a space, provided they aren't obsessive about being able to park right outside their doors! But as soon as a small CPZ comes in, the available space for all is reduced. That is why you are right that if all is zoned, it won't reduce parked car numbers: it will just mean we are paying an extra tax for nothing. When I lived in another similar area which went from free parking to gradually introduced CPZs, this is exactly what happened ultimately. With a few honourable exceptions where there may be a real case (perhaps adjacent to a station, for instance), pushing to introduce it just for one's home road, when parking is perhaps not ideal but not critical, is shortsighted and doesn't consider the effect on neighbours or next-door roads. A real solution to advocates of non-car ownership like jimlad48 would be a) ban all cars and b) make public transport useable. Public transport is not really fit for purpose in ED. I don't take my car into zone 1, as I don't wish to pay the Congestion Charge, and cycling (my main form of transport) has always been far, far quicker than public transport - which really should not be the case if local government were serious about efficient public transport and moving people out of private cars. It isn't. CPZs are a way of raising revenue for Councils: they are not genuinely about improving traffic movement, pollution or helping to upgrade public transport.

milk76 Wrote: > I just feel sorry for Derwent Grove, Melbourne et > al who were not offered the chance this time. > Hopefully you guys will get the option soon. I > guess this new portal will at least track interest > in your streets. There is no problem on Melbourne - I have lived yards sound of ED Grove since 2003 and never had a parking problem.

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bobby P Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > If thats the democratic vote, then thats > awesome > > - > > > the people have spoken. BUT, mindful that > > parking > > > is about to get a lot worse due to new CPZ > > > elsewhere, I have met with Residents who are > > keen > > > to see change. > > > > It seems you are some kind of campaigner for > CPZs, > > since what happens in ED clearly has nothing to > do > > with your own area, where you already have one. > > > > > Unless you are a Southwark employee or > represent > > some anti-car campaign (for instance), I can't > > imagine why you are meeting with CPZ-enthusiast > > residents in this area, or agitating for this > to > > happen here, as I really can't see how it > benefits > > or concerns you. > > > > Nothing against anyone being a campaigner for > CPZs > > if that is what they believe in, but let's face > > it, it's not just neighbourly concern that > > motivates this, so it would be interesting to > know > > who you represent. > > > I don't represent anyone actually. I'm a local > resident, keen participant in local democracy and > keen to support fellow local residents. I was > approached to offer advice, which I've happily > offered and am now happy to offer the same advice > to others too. > > I wasn't aware that offering help and support to > people who ask for it, and extending the offer is > a crime. If you don't like the fact that freedom > of speech means listening to people offer support > for others, and instead prefer to cast aspersions, > then thats a great shame, but thats the country we > live in. > > I'm not going to go away, and I'm happy to keep > offering advice to people in ED who want it - I've > already have several approaches, so clearly > opinions differ. If though you can point to the > specific byelaw or regulation that prevents local > people living outside your illustrious postcode > offering online assistance to local residents then > by all means point me to it, and I'll come quietly > to the cop shop... Hmmm. As I do believe I stated in my post, nothing against people campaigning for CPZs if that is their wont. And indeed grass-root campaigns have every right to flourish and prevail - or to flounder and be defeated if found wanting. As for affiliation, thank you for clarifying how you come to be advocating for this: I understand that pretty clearly now. Finally, one would have to say we clearly do respect 'free speech' on this very forum - where people have different opinions and robust debate often occurs. Funnily enough, though you have no way of knowing this, I am a true absolutist for unfettered free speech - the value of raising and debating even the most controversial issues, especially ones far more controversial than CPZs - so found it very funny to be accused of the opposite! :)

> If thats the democratic vote, then thats awesome - > the people have spoken. BUT, mindful that parking > is about to get a lot worse due to new CPZ > elsewhere, I have met with Residents who are keen > to see change. It seems you are some kind of campaigner for CPZs, since what happens in ED clearly has nothing to do with your own area, where you already have one. Unless you are a Southwark employee or represent some anti-car campaign (for instance), I can't imagine why you are meeting with CPZ-enthusiast residents in this area, or agitating for this to happen here, as I really can't see how it benefits or concerns you. Nothing against anyone being a campaigner for CPZs if that is what they believe in, but let's face it, it's not just neighbourly concern that motivates this, so it would be interesting to know who you represent.

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > East Dulwich residents want a CPZ - I know as I > have met them. Don't know who you have met, but that is a very broad generalisation at best and empirically not true, since every time this has come up as a vote/consultation, ED residents have voted against. There naturally are always some who do want parking restrictions, but I don't think an agitating minority should be able to inflict extra taxes on a larger number who are perfectly happy with the status quo.

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I also think it's bizarre for jimlad48 to be > > pushing for a CPZ when he lives in SE5 > > I'm not pushing. I am already flagging up to > residents who want one (and I know there are a lot > because I've spoken to them) that there is a way > to campaign for one. I'm also offering my advice > on how to get one to those that do want to put the > effort in to campaign, because we had a lot of > hard learned lessons. Clearly the forum is for information so I suppose there's no harm in spreading it, even if many (most?) on here are vehemently opposed (one only has to do a little search on the forum history to see) and it's definitely stirring up a hornet's nest. I do think it is a little odd to be offering assistance to get CPZs, as on the thread's original post to those outside your immediate area and therefore dealing with issues completely different from the case on your own road. If someone wants to help lobby for a CPZ in my road, I'd at least want them to live here. And ideally I'd like them to pay the taxes/fines I would be liable to if the lobbying were successful: why would anyone be keen to impose extra expense on others who are not necessarily rolling in cash, frankly, when it has no benefit to themselves, outside the political? I have to repeat, I find it a bit odd.

Unbelievable that this comes up again, after being roundly defeated last time, and bizarre to have someone offering to assist in pushing through this pestilence in roads that aren't even theirs. (Council employee?) The answer is clearly no. - CPZ's are simply a tax: and not just the annual fee, but the visitors fees and (worst of all) the large fine levied, and constant concern, when a CPZ bay is suspended for some reason while one is away, or simply cannot go and check one's car parked down the road every day, resulting in towage. (This happened twice in my last CPZ to me, and the fight with the Council to be reimbursed was a stressful tussle, albeit ultimately successful). - On my road, Melbourne, one can't always park DIRECTLY outside the house, but 90% of the time can park within sight of it, and on the few occasions not, then a couple of hundred yards away. Welcome to urban living: it is ludicrous to expect to be parked directly outside one's house in London. Utterly selfish: never was and never will be that way on shared public road space. - Under CPZ, where reduction of spaces to park occurs with bay markings, parking in my experience was just as bad (or as good) after as it was before, when free. There may be some roads where a temporary difference would be felt, but certainly not all, and 'temporary' is the operative word. - Encouraging online CPZ campaigns for individual roads (clearly Southwark's new wheeze: I wonder why...!) is obviously a way to make sure the creep across the whole area occurs, as any approved scheme pushes some cars into the neighbouring free zone. It's all an utterly cynical and blatantly mercenary move. I think some people truly think these things usher in a new utopia. They don't. At the very least, they add another level of stress and expense to urban living, at worst they do so without in any way alleviating parking.

Have also listed in my formal complaint the utter wastefulness of taxpayer money, the total lack of need for this, and the fact that it will actually degrade the quality of life for many, not help it. Anyone who thinks this is an absurd proposal should get their objection in very quickly. 22nd is nearly upon us. It's not a hard form to fill out - took me less than 5 minutes. [consultations.southwark.gov.uk]

spider69 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why not leave it as it is? > Has worked for many many years until the new > imports arrived. > This is inner London. This exactly.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The thing which particularly annoys me about all > this is the implicit assumption that we could all, > could we be bothered, switch happily to cycle > transport, and that not doing so is inherently > selfish. That is to say, that Southwark is blessed > with no disabled people, no elderly and infirm, no > very young children, nobody who needs to transport > items which are heavy and/ or awkwardly shaped for > bicycle transport, nobody who, whilst able bodied > themselves has to transport any of those in the > categories above and so on. Or, if there are such > poisonous and pointless people in Southwark, then > the inadequate public transport, not (mainly ) > traveling east to west, not (frequently) > operational at weekends or in the late evenings > and so on will be entirely adequate to meet their, > frankly, irrelevant needs, until they have the > decency to move or die. And until then we will > endorse a council which is intent on making the > travel lives of these parasites increasingly > difficult, hopefully, if we can blag in CPZs > expensive, and frustrating. Great post. You nailed the moralising perfectly. (Posted by a cyclist on approximately 70% of journeys, commuter or evil car driver on the rest).

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Big picture is this year Paris conference about > what has now become irreversible climate change > while humans still exist on planet earth. They're > now arguing of whether we're all willing to keep > the change somewhere between an extra 2-5 degrees > C or not. Already the calculation suggest the > oceans rising 5m over the next century - that's > most of London under water. James I didn't know you were such a true green campaigner! Explains much, but I've never read such alarmist rubbish as the above piffle. This is absolutely not the position of the IPCC on these issues, only of very (very) fringe campaigners from the most extreme green lobby organisations (and some politicians who like to use them for political ends). London under water within a century - laughable, and no serious science has ever said such a thing. To justify ridiculous planning decisions on this basis is just beyond parody. Pollution in London is an issue, but poorly considered road closures such as this only add to it, helping no one, and certainly not saving the planet in any conceivable way.

James Barber Wrote: > More recentLy I thought I had been more > conciliatory and less gung ho. I will try harder. I think this is true and thank you for trying, James. When all the written communication and the door-knocking from the Traffic Action Group specifically and solely mentions the barrier, it is no surprise that people become very worried indeed. It was good to have "on the record" clarification at the DCC on the barrier point. > a variety of options over a > larger area that if this forum and the petitions > are representative won't result in closing the > road. I'd be pretty astonished if it did, and thank you for commenting on the record at the meeting that you've had second thoughts personally about it. > When I've chaired DCC meetings in the past I would > let Robin speak much more than she did last night. > I have a lot of time for her. I'm hopeful that at future meetings she will be > able to have her voice back - she knows and > remembers lots of back stories that can help us > reach better decisions - but not at the expense of > others speaking. I don't think Robin was going to monopolise yesterday's meeting, but simply wanted to make one point, which was rather rudely refused. However, I agree with you she has brought a great deal of information to bear on this whole issue and clearly has great knowledge not only of recent history but also how to interpret surveys etc. - in this, she seems infinitely more qualified than some of the current Councillors on the panel who appear to have: no grasp of the detail whatsoever; vacuously emotive "touchy feely" arguments in place of reason; little interest in engaging with their constituents (including complete derision for this useful forum - without which so many issues would not become known to the ED populace); and a remarkably defensive attitude to dealing with petitions. By the way, James, I exempt you from pretty much all of these charges, but you and Robin unfortunately seemed the exception rather than the rule yesterday. But despite this, as bels123 says above, a generally productive meeting.

Nice poster. Good on Stuart for doing this.

Well, thank you, James, for opposing this nonsense and it is indeed good that they mainly have not imposed further parking restrictions. If you could take a similarly practical view to the disruptions to traffic and parking that would result from the Melbourne Grove barrier and pinch-points, and recant your preposterous view on the traffic survey showing the opposite of what it actually shows, we'd all have a lot of respect for you. James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Apologies for not being clearer. > We opposed changing unrestricted East Dulwich ward > parking to 1 hour restricted car parking. Success > for our patch. > > Labour Southwark have introduced such restrictions > in many other places - despite 50:50 consultation > results - because it was in their 2014 Southwark > Labour manifesto. They resoundly won that election > so people get what they voted for. Always worth > reading the small print before voting in local > elections.

Well thanks to James for sharing this, I guess. So not only do the "barrier warriors" want a barrier but also pinch-points restricting parking further. No wonder Councillor Barber loves it. All for what? Vanity? Certainly not because of a problem with speeding on the road, as the road surveys have categorically demonstrated there is none, at least to any reasonable and sane person. NIMBYism at its worst.