MarkT

In earlier posts, I?ve raised my concerns that pay to park bays in the middle of the zone might be blocked by all day parkers. Others have responded, with no supporting evidence or argument, that this will not happen and that it is a red herring. I?m not reassured. Unless there is a clear mechanism to prevent it, then it will happen. The proposal map shows a length of green bay in front of the Community Centre, and likewise in front of, or close to, other community facilities, presumably deliberately sited for the users of those facilities. I declare an interest in the East Dulwich Community Centre, but I think my concerns might be shared with other community facilities. The Community Centre is in use at any time of the day. Some people attending have individual needs to travel by car, but anyone running an activity, for an hour or two, may need to bring a car load of equipment, and arrive in advance and leave after the timed activity. Even if that green bay was somehow reserved for users of the Centre, a 2 hour restriction, eg, would affect any such use of the Centre that overlaps that 2 hour period, and therefore actually have an affect over 4 or 5 hours. However, I?m suggesting that they may in practice not be able to park there at all. The green bays are not reserved for users of that particular community facility but can be used by anyone, at any time, non permit holders paying by phone during the restricted hours. A weekend driver resident could occupy a green spot all week. The proposal would therefore allow day parkers and/or permit holders to occupy those green zones continually, making them completely unavailable to users of the Facility. There is currently no shortage of parking spaces at that end of Darrell Road or neighbouring streets. The plan reduces the number of parking spaces throughout the CPZ but particularly in that vicinity with extensive new lengths of double yellow lines in Crystal Palace Road and Hindmans road, removing about 25 spaces.

"They used to have Open Mic night on Mondays - which was really popular with some local musicians." JohnL, Yes, it has been running for some while on the first Monday of each month, also really popular with some people who come as audience. The next date should be next Monday 4th Feb, but with the change in ownership, who knows? Keep an eye on the What's On section. Also from time to time, excellent gigs from our local swing band the Fabulous Honeys. MarkT

117 or 98 requests for a CPZ? Let's not quibble about the precise number. Either way it sounds more impressive than 1.4% spread over 3-4 years. By the way, does anyone contact the Council, unprompted, to demand the status quo? It is all spin from their claim of massive unsolicited demand to the spurious title of ?Healthy Streets?. This is not an open minded consultation. Every bit of the Council?s publicity is biased and hard sell, even the section ?What are the disadvantages??? is turned to supposed benefits. It is a vote counting exercise, and they are not interested in counter arguments (others have reported above that officers were not recording their views). If you have filled in the on-line questionnaire your vote has been counted. I asked one of the officers at the drop-in session what if a person had filled in the on-line questionnaire and voted (either way) at the first opportunity and later had reversed their view, or had developed a compelling argument to support a view, could they redo the questionnaire? The answer was that to avoid double counting, they would probably discount the second. As regards petitions, because of the possibility of double voting, or multiple voting, I got the impression, they were inclined to disregard them, relying instead on the on line responses.

The extended double yellow lines provide faster passing place for through traffic, allowing rat runners to duck and dive, and allowing faster movement in and out of driveways across a pavement. Each crossover is, in effect a mini T-junction with no defined priority and a sort of no man's land between the parked cars. The Council's reasoning on this is very unclear. Previous CPZ reports have stated that a "critical benefit" is the improvement of traffic flow through the area, which implies increased volume and speed but this round of CPZ's are entitled "healthy streets". The Southwark Streetscape Design Manual gave the reason for the extended double yellow lines as improving visibity with the note of caution that research has shown that increased visibility can lead to increased danger through speed. That note of caution has now been deleted. The plans show quite a few new double yellow lines, providing those extended passing places, and where crossovers are close together, the 2 Metre extensions leave less than a full length parking bay, so the double yellows are just extended, so you are not even allowed to park a small car or a motorbike. There are extensive runs of double yellow lines in Hindmans and Crystal Palace Roads, for example, between them removing about 25 spaces, and giving an invitation to drivers for a burst of speed. A standard parking space is 5M or so. With a pair of 2M extensions, if the space between dropped kerbs is less than 9M, the parking space is lost. So, if you live in a terraced house, and both your neighbours have dropped kerbs, you will find double yellow lines right across your frontage. All this is guaranteed to make enemies out of neighbours.

"But how can a consultation be valid if a majority decide against? Surely this would be completely undemocratic? Would Southwark Labour really force through CPZ without majority support for such a major change?" First Mate, If the rules for deciding the winner are not laid out in advance, there is leeway for interpretation of the results. In the case of Dog Kennel Hill: "? 12% of respondents were undecided on whether they would like a parking zone, 39% stated that they did not want a parking zone and 49% stated that they did want a parking zone. ? It is clear that the largest group of respondents would like a parking zone on their street." This from a response rate of 15% almost exclusively drivers. Then there is spin. If you've said no, your option of whether it should operate all day or for 2 hours is really not what you would like but rather your least objectionable option, but the Report implies support for the overall scheme: "? 65% of respondents would like it to operate Monday to Friday." The scheme was implemented over the whole study area, though only 14 of 29 streets voted yes: "? Street-by-street analysis shows that 14 streets support a parking zone and ten streets are against. Three streets were undecided and there was no response from Grove Vale or Henry Dent Close."

"But am I correct that Peckam West and East Dulwich would be separate zones and a permit covers only one zone?" "Yes. Each of these proposed areas could be sub divided if the consultation results suggest this would work better." James, you seem to be answering a different question. Can you clarify? Are you saying: a) There could be a lot of even smaller CPZ's, so a permit would cover only a few streets, or b) The resulting CPZ would be reduced and the remainder of the proposed area would stay unrestricted? The evidence from existing CPZ's is that the whole area proposed ends up as a single CPZ including all streets that have voted no.

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.

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.

But am I correct that Peckam West and East Dulwich would be separate zones and a permit covers only one zone?

Jimlad, you are grossly misrepresenting the Peckham Road South Parking Study. You asserted that "a couple of streets had said no, but the judgement was they would quickly request to be added to the CPZ once the wider zone was activated." You are wrong in two ways: 1. Officers made no such assumption that people who voted against, would reverse their opinion. Your suggestion that they would do so and your justification of such an assumption was indeed outrageous. Actually the Report reveals that the question was actually asked: "If you answered ?No? or ?Undecided? to question 4, would you change your mind if a parking zone was to be proposed in only part of the study area?" The Response: No 56% yes 6% 2. You refer me to page 18 of the Report and quote "streets such as Denman Road and Talfourd Road were against the implementation of a parking zone" If you read the Executive summary, you will see that those two streets are named only as examples."Street-by-street analysis shows that nine streets support a parking zone and eight streets are against. Ainsworth Close was undecided and there was no response from Peckham High Street." Actually therefore a minority of streets voted yes. The map in the Report shows this to be in a block. The will of that block and the officers driving the process was therefore imposed on the greater part of the area.

Sally Eva, to ask people to record a provisional alternative choice is totally reasonable, with the option to say 'no, I will not change my mind' That is not what jimlad has reported and is justifying. Jimlad, can you provide the actual quote, to support your statement?

"In the toastrack consultation it was noted that a couple of streets had said no, but the judgement was they would quickly request to be added to the CPZ once the wider zone was activated." jimlad, that's outrageous.

"See below quote from Cllr James McAsh from his councillor thread - 2nd Sept 18 ?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.?" Did James provide written evidence to support that promise? It was certainly not the case in Dog Kennel Hill, where only 14 of 29 streets voted yes. Here are some quotes from the 2017 Dog Kennel Hill CPZ Report: "Street-by-street analysis shows that 14 streets support a parking zone and ten streets are against. Three streets were undecided and there was no response from Grove Vale or Henry Dent Close." Based on the results of the informal consultation, officers are making the following recommendations: 1. To implement a parking zone throughout the whole study area.

bels123, how do you prevent those paid bays being blocked by an all day parker paying by phone, or any resident permit holder?

Close to spinerus is a proposed pay to park bay, shared with permit holders, in Jennings Rd, possibly sited with intention that it is available to Heber Road School. Such bays seem to be located close to a range of community facilities. If another such bay were placed close to the clinic, perhaps every resident permit holder, commuter, and tradesperson would altruistically leave it for spinesrus clients, but I suspect, given that people can pay by phone, every such island of pay to park would be blocked all day, and unavailable to the indended users.

the_greeno, If you mean parking in the public street, then it will not be on the estate parking system. The estate parking officers may have no connection with or knowledge of street parking controls. CPZ permits are not now displayed in the car window. Any parking controls in place will be displayed on road markings and signs on posts. Anyway you have now realised that it is not only car owners who are affected by CPZ's

"The irony of driving to the leisure centre!" Indeed, but to be fair there are some who need to drive but do not qualify for a blue badge. Also, though perhaps not in the case of the Leisure Centre, anyone organising activities at other community facilities may need to carry equipment, so need parking close by, typically for a couple of hours. The plans show pay-to-park sections (shared with permit parking) close to the Leisure Centre and to other community facilities, eg Goose Green Centre and the East Dulwich Community Centre. If the CPZ restrictions are to be all day, the pay-to-park bays would be necessary as the only available parking for non-residents. However if the CPZ is to operate for only a couple of hours in the day, those bays will likely be blocked by all day parkers, paying by phone for those couple of hours, and thus totally unavailable for the users of the community facility. MarkT

Well it was certainly there before. I quoted it in other threads on this forum to argue against extended double yellow lines on dropped kerbs and at junctions. Why would they delete such a convenient counter argument? MarkT

Rendelharris I think it occurs in the opening paragraphs of several sections eg DS 114 1.2.b. "Stopping distances vary with vehicle type and speed. However, research now suggests that providing excessive visibility can also introduce dangers as it may increase the speed that people drive or ride at." I noted this some while ago, so I was citing it from memory, my apologies if I have overstated the concern. MarkT

Alex_b, Your concern of higher speeds is confirmed by Southwark Council's Streetscape Design Manual, which states that research shows that increased sightlines lead to increased speed. Also the Council's reports on previous CPZ's state that a benefit of a CPZ is improved traffic flow through the area. That implies more speed and an invitation to rat running. This is an obvious result of the extended double yellow lines at junctions and dropped kerbs. I have particular concerns about the extended lines across dropped kerbs as it encourages greater speed crossing pavements, with a particular risk to small children. MarkT

This map gives street numbers http://maps.southwark.gov.uk/connect/southwark.jsp?tooltip=yes

sally buying comments: "if you were expecting a CPZ between the hours of 11-1, whereby cars have to remove themselves discouraging commuters etc, in our neck of the woods the signs show park and pay for the above hours." The concept of CPZ certainly includes both resident/visitor parking and pay by the hour arrangements, but were people who voted for the Dog Kennel Hill CPZ expecting park and pay to be included in that area? Were they misled by the Council. You raise an interesting point. Previous park and pay systems - parking meters and pay and display - required the presence of the driver at the time of payment. A two hour charged period in the middle of the day could therefore be employed to thwart commuters. With phone payment, a commuter can park all day and make the payment remotely at the start of the charged period.

Water? Can you locate the sound? Look around your water systems eg toilet. Can you turn off the water before it enters the flat? That would confirm if it is water, and would limit damage. Are you on the ground floor? MarkT

Rollflick wrote ?Surely it's the people not responding to consultations who are lazy? And many people who want a CPZ - so space can be given over to wider pavements, safer junctions, cycling, greenery etc. - don't have any cars at all.? Rollflick. The 2012 Grove Vale CPZ consultation report states that 10% of respondents don?t ?have? a vehicle. More answered yes to: do ?You? have difficulty parking, than to: do ?your visitors? have difficulty. So most of the 10% who do not ?have? a vehicle must be drivers. So the many people who do not have car, who you say want a CPZ, do not respond to the Survey. You say that non car owners want a CPZ to get people friendly streets. That is a very nice vision and it is well presented by the Guardian reporter, but it is not on offer here. Look at local Controlled Parking Zones. They are exactly as the name implies. Boxes marked out for paid parking, and everywhere else restricted by yellow lines. Note in this context double yellow lines across pavement crossovers, extending well beyond the length of dropped kerb. In its CPZ reports the Council states that a benefit of CPZ is that it improves traffic flow through an area, by providing more and longer passing places, with greater visibility around junctions. The Council?s Streetscape Design Manual states that increasing visibility leads to increased speed. I am particularly concerned about the extended double yellows on dropped kerbs. The resident is thereby encouraged to cross the pavement at greater speed, regardless of the toddler on a scooter. By the way, for the privilege of guaranteed speedy access, the off-street parker, I suppose, doesn?t need to pay for a Resident?s permit. Under a CPZ all residents have to pay for their visitors and tradespeople. In the Grove Vale consultation 21% responded, almost all drivers. 59% voted No. The non-drivers may not be lazy; they probably think it does not affect them. MarkT

Apmuso, who declares himself as "campaigning for" writes: MarkT - you assume that the ED CPZ scheme will be rolled out in exactly the same manner as the Dog Kennel one. Not what I'd heard. Now, Apmuso, my assumptions are based on published Council documents. Are you saying that you, as a CPZ campaigner, are privy to better information? MarkT