gmackenney

The 10-14% figures probably originated from an earlier post from me relating to two streets on the CPZ which I specifically enquired about directly with the council - Ondine (10%) and East Dulwich Road (14%). Happy to forward on documentation to those who want it. Figures for the streets closer to the station may well be higher. I've previously asked the councillors on this thread to provide greater transparency into the figures so we can properly assess the impact. So far they've not been forthcoming. In addition, the council really should be providing transparency into the reduction in spaces expected to be available to residents. Certain streets may fare better than others in this respect. The fact is parking is a challenge in a far wider area than the CPZ would cover. We live in the inner city - the choice to live here has both upsides and downsides. The concern of many in the ring outside the CPZ is that the problems it is seeking to solve are unlikely to provide enough of a benefit to justify the misery it heaps on those just outside it. Yes, one could call that attitude selfish, but the reverse perspective is also similarly selfish. The other fear is that the CPZ will keep growing as it simply spreads the parking problem. But like others on this thread I want to see the data to see if it supports the hypothesis that this CPZ is going to help, rather than relying on subjectivity or the frankly inadequate consultation document. I make no secret of the fact that I'm against, but this is more a product of the lack of transparency and underhand way the council has behaved so far.

James, So far, the council has not consulted with or even informed the people who live in the neighbouring streets that there is a consultation happening. First I heard of this was on this forum. This is not ?consultation? in any sense. The parking stress you refer to will not disappear ? it will simply shift to the neighbouring streets. Why then do the views of those in the proposed CPZ carry more weight than those who will bear the consequences? I agree with the earlier poster who suggested that the CPZ will actually result in fewer spaces being available to park in (given the introduction of additional yellow lines and passing places etc) ? the question is will the offset caused by the reduction in commuter parking be enough to offset this reduction in available space? Does the parking study look at this issue at all? I?ll lay my cards on the table ? I live in Hinckley Road ? one road to the east of this proposed CPZ. I?m against. I?m not alone, and I?m pretty sure a lot of the posters on this thread are close enough to this CPZ to be affected (particularly the residents of Oglander, Everthorpe etc). Perhaps some of the people posting on this thread may not be in the affected area, but it is clear that there are people who are in the affected area and expressing their opposition to this CPZ. Your unwillingness to engage in reasoned debate about the downsides of this CPZ speaks volumes about where you stand on this issue. It is for this reason that few people immediately outside the proposed CPZ view this exercise as a consultation. The absence of hard data, a well thought out proposal and supporting arguments are the primary reasons I'm so vehemently opposed to this CPZ. You don't have to look too far to see what happens when a CPZ is established - non-resident's vehicles simply park in the neighbouring streets fuelling the growth of the CPZ. Plenty of examples of this are documented online. Would you care to comment on this point specifically? Perhaps as a start we could have full disclosure on the data driving this proposal in the interests of moving towards greater transparency. Are you able to share some of that data here that supports the case for the CPZ?

I echo this - currently the council appear to only be listening to those in favour of the CPZ. If you oppose it please make yourself heard by contacting them directly. Some more thoughts from our councillors, just in case you're in any doubt as to the bias involved: Consulting people who don't currently have a parking problem (but will have following the implementation of a CPZ) is a waste of money! Moreover, not enough funding is being given to the project to 'deterimine a logical boundary'. In other words, once a CPZ is established, the council will start extending it with impunity! The effect on surrounding streets will not be accounted for until after the CPZ is in place, by which time it will be too late. Right - going to stop hogging the thread now!

On this subject (bias in the consultation), I'll share with you some of the response from the councillors on the matter raised by peckhamboy: This was in response to a question relating to Ondine and East Dulwich Roads. Note that for Ondine, 10% of parking can be attributed to commuters, and at no point was the road 100% occupied (i.e. there are spaces available). In addition, the lowest occupancy was at 9:00 am (when surely most commuters would have parked) and the highest at 19:30 (when most would have left). Moreover, few residents in Ondine want this CPZ according to Paul Gellard himself. So this begs the question - why does it extend to this road at all? To peckhamboy's point regarding the number of residents and the available space to park, East Dulwich Road is a case in point. It consists of very large Victorian properties divided into flats. Of course the number of parking spaces in this road is going to be constrained. No CPZ will alleviate this issue - as a resident you'll still have to play 'hunt the space' but now you'll be paying for the privilege. What makes me mad is that this detail isn't in the consultation document precisely because it doesn't support the case for a CPZ. These guys need to be held to account for putting forward a very weak case for a CPZ, surrounded with loads of waffle about yellow lines and trees as opposed to hard facts.

If anyone's interested, I received a response to my email to the council on this matter which I'm happy to forward via PM (it's a bit long to include in the body of this thread!)

James Nobody was suggesting that residents in Nunhead would need to be consulted for this CPZ in its present form - what was suggested however in the prior message on this thread, is that this wouldn't be far from the truth given the propensity for CPZs to grow. The prior post was tongue in cheek and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous. What I'm struggling with is why the residents of streets clearly in favour will carry so much more weight that those who live on the periphery (who will clearly be in the worse situation following implementation). All CPZs appear to do is move a parking problem from one area to another, whilst the council derives revenue. I think there would definitely be less hostility to a CPZ if the council were being less cynical in its approach: 1. Wider consultation of affected streets 2. More emphasis on parking survey results than highly subjective advantages of a CPZ within the consultation document 3. Some more objective coverage of the downsides The current consultation appears geared towards pushing this CPZ through to the advantage of the council and residents on the included streets rather than the community at large.