Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Parking in Ondine, Oglander and thereabouts is now almost impossible due to commuters driving in from elsewhere and then parking for the day. The problem is further exacerbated by the presence of commercial vehicles and enormous 'Chelsea tractors' and the like. Several years ago a plan for parking permits was rejected by local residents. Perhaps this proposal could be revisited.

The thing is, it doesn't work well. Having lived in two CPZs, I can tell you you will be no better off, except you'll have to shell out ?100 a year for the privilege.


And you'll have to keep a book of day tickets (which expire after three years), for friends and family and tradesmen who pop by, even for just 10 minutes.


And you'll find yourself getting fined ?120 when you forget to re-apply for your permit, or, in our case, when it fell off the windscreen on a sunny day.


And you'll find other drivers from the area will STILL park in your street, as the CPZ will cover a large area, for example the whole of SE22.


Be careful what you wish for.

Just to add to Kford's note, in my experience CPZs are accompanied by more road marking which reduces the number of parking spaces available overall. CPZs are only effective in increasing parking for locals if the number of spaces lost is outweighed by the reduction in the number of non-locals parking in controlled hours. I seem to remember that the survey a few years ago did not demonstrate this.


Edit: I understand that Southwark is trying to reduce the number of parking spaces by increased road marking anyway, which would remove one of the arguments against CPZ.

Well, we live one road over and the street parking is surprisingly quiet - never once had to park more than ten yards from our gate in the four months since we moved here. I'd suggest problems in Oglander and Ondine may be to do with their position leading into the Peckham Rye CPZ? Sorry if it's selfish but we don't want to pay Southwark ?125 to ease our parking problems when we don't actually have any! I see Southwark's extant CPZs are massive - for example one stretches from Elephant to Burgess Park - and so any introduction would clearly cover areas which don't have a problem as well as those that do. Obviously this is inevitable as a street by street imposition would just mean everyone migrating to surrounding streets. Still, really not keen to pay more than a ton a year to solve a problem which, for us, doesn't exist.


If a CPZ were to be introduced I don't see why a 5 metre 4x4 should pay the same as our 2.5 metre Smart, but I expect that's just the green eyed monster - that's what 4x4 owners always accuse one of, anyway!

Edit - sorry just realised you said another part of Zone 2, not another part of Southwark!


Well as far as I can see now (http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200220/on-street_parking_permits/477/resident_parking_permits) only hybrids and electric cars get a discount (to ?31.25) - all other vehicles appear to be ?125p.a. Be interested to hear if there are variations.

??, my point is that it's not all bad - it very much depends on the road. I'm happy to live with the drawbacks and the small-ish fee to park right outside my house. But if I was paying for a permit, and it was STILL hard to find a space, I'd probably be less than ecstatic. Also, some parts of SE22 don't really have a parking problem, therefore a CPZ is unnecessary.

Now that North Dulwich has had a CPZ implemented, is it fair to say that East Dulwich is unique in not having a CPZ? (if not in Zone 2, then certainly in the area)


Parking seems to be a problem for any street in and around East Dulwich Station and any street which has specific local demands which are higher than the capacity of the street.


I live on Tyrrell Road and would support a CPZ 100%.... many of the residents I know would too.

However, I would say that much of East Dulwich does not have a major parking problem.


The soon to be implemented borough wide junction protection programme which extends double yellow lines to ALL junctions for 7.5m in the whole of Southwark will certainly reduce capacity and increase demand for parking, it may well increase demand for a CPZ.


I still find it odd that someone would drive to ED Station to park and catch a train from there. How far away do you have to live to justify driving where a bus or another station wouldn't be a better option?

Do people really drive to catch a train from Zone 2 rather than Zone 3 to save money on train fair?

Johnjohn Wrote:

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

> I still find it odd that someone would drive to ED

> Station to park and catch a train from there.


The south/east of SE22 is a bit of a public transport black spot... I suspect quite a few people from round there drive to the station, rather than walk for 20+ mins or using the bus.

We live in the very south-most bit of SE22 and I have to say I'm not aware of any of my immediate neighbours driving to the station - we tend to walk or catch the bus. Generally our area doesn't have a problem with parking although I think there's a lot more cars than there used to be 5 years ago - especially where a couple of small (10 flat) developments have gone in recently - definitely a lot more cars parking on street around those. The problem with small developments without parking provision (which is what we tend to have round here) is that they can put a lot more pressure on street parking in particular areas.


When the last CPZ review was done back in 2012, I'm pretty sure that I remember the survey on parking identified that a number of the people who were classed as "commuters" weren't hopping on the train at ED but were working nearby in local businesses in and around Lordship Lane. I may be totally misremembering this, but it would make sense given the number of businesses in and around the area. As others have said, I'm not at all sure that putting a CPZ in place would make it easier for people to park outside their home and certainly for me it would be a hassle as there's no need for it in our area, but I also agree it's likely to come back on the agenda when Southwark push through their yellow line policy as they seem determined to do.

but were working nearby in local businesses and indeed schools etc. The point was made that these people were coming into the area from outside to benefit the area by teaching our children, serving us in shops and restaurants, mending our houses etc.


Southwark wants to increase parking pressures because these will tend to precipitate calls for CPZs and CPZ revenues and fines offer them revenue sources which cannot be impacted by government fiat on local taxation. They also don't like cars or car owners. They use the concept of wedge, so as soon as a CPZ is installed it brings pressure on zones outside it to call for their own CPZ etc. It is interesting how, in many London areas, CPZ charges begin to escalate over time (well out of line with inflation) as they are used to boost council coffers.


Calling for a CPZ is like helping the council to stuff their hands in your pockets. I can think of no instance (happy to stand corrected) where a CPZ decision (i.e. to have one) has ever later been reversed.


In areas where public transport links are poor (i.e. east/ west traffic around here) the imposition of CPZs has a tendency to isolate areas. The 'just hit the selfish out of area commuter' half an hour in the middle of the day CPZ idea is hardly ever actually used - even though it is often the 'reason' why locals are encouraged to vote for a CPZ. Instead the CPZ hours tend to be extended - I have seen 8:00am to 8:00pm Monday to Saturday (and worse) emerge in some areas of London - I even remember (I hope it's a false memory) a 9:00 or 10:00pm cut-off.


Once a CPZ is there councils have a tendency to extend to extend its reach, scope and cost. And once it has been agreed at all, they feel far less need to consult or take notice of peoples views (in so far as they do at all).

If a CPZ is introduced won't people with large enough front gardens apply for dropped curbs and then turn their garden into their car park making the area less attractive, less likely to attract bees and wildlife as there would be less plants and also less room for rainwater to drain away.
I generally don't buy the idea that there are large numbers of people driving to ED station. If there are any, they're likely to be those from other parts of ED (who would presumably have a permit, in a CPZ scenario anyway). It's much quicker for people out of town to get a train in from further out.

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> but were working nearby in local businesses and

> indeed schools etc. The point was made that these

> people were coming into the area from outside to

> benefit the area by teaching our children, serving

> us in shops and restaurants, mending our houses

> etc.


yeh, the whole idea that only residents have the 'right' to park in a particular area is ridiculous. what's the point in keeping a car, parked right outside your house, if you can't actually use it to travel anywhere.

Having lived on Oglander Road (at the station end) for the last 16 years I don't think the parking situation has substantially deteriorated during that period - we did not need a CPZ when it was proposed a few years back and we do not need one now. More often than not we can park either outside our house or a few houses away. When we can't park on Oglander then we can park just around the corner Everthorpe Road.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> feck it, I'll go out on a limb and say I doubt there are more than a handful of people who

> genuinely cannot park within a few minutes walk of their front door, more often than not, anywhere in

> ED. *ducks, takes cover under desk*


I think the problem is that people want to park within a few seconds walk from their house. Which, in most parts of London, is just fantasy thinking.

Though there's roughly enough parking, it is irritating to be unable to easily park within 10 or more houses of mine when unloading. Deliveries on Ondine Road during the working week from commercial vehicles invariably mean being double parked.


I would love to see a cheap residents' permit scheme where some parts of one side of the road were limited to residents, and the other side remained a free-for-all. This would at least be a good experiment if restrictions were at the ends of the road nearest to Grove Vale, without having to charge visitors for parking or some complex scheme for handing out vouchers to visiting friends of residents.


However, my professional experience with Council parking departments, is that residents would be charged ?150/year or more for the permit, and every year the Council would be tempted to see parking charges a cash cow that they should milk a bit more from. So thumbs down, unless the Council were to make some firm commitments on how it was to work, perhaps with a residents group to help hold them to account if things start to go wrong.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • So top of Lane. Local Sainsbury, middle Co Op and M and S and bottom Tesco Express…..now everyone should be happy except those that want a Waitrose as well…0h and  don’t forget M and S near ED Station….
    • Direct link to joint statement : https://thehaguegroup.org/meetings-bogota-en/?link_id=2&can_id=2d0a0048aad3d4915e3e761ac87ffe47&source=email-pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogota-breakthrough&email_referrer=email_2819587&email_subject=pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogot_-breakthrough&&   No. 26 | The Bogotá Breakthrough “The era of impunity is over.” That was the message from Bogotá, Colombia, where governments from across the Global South and beyond took the most ambitious coordinated action since Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza began 21 months ago. Convened by The Hague Group and co-chaired by the governments of Colombia and South Africa, the Emergency Conference on Palestine brought together 30 states for two days of intensive deliberation — and emerged with a concrete, coordinated six-point plan to restrain Israel’s war machine and uphold international law. States took up the call from their host, Colombian President and Progressive International Council Member Gustavo Petro, who had urged them to be “protagonists together.” Twelve governments signed onto the measures immediately. The rest now have a deadline: 20 September 2025, on the eve of the United Nations General Assembly. The unprecedented six measures commit states to:     Prevent military and dual use exports to Israel.     Refuse Israeli weapons transfers at their ports.     Prevent vessels carrying weapons to Israel under their national flags.     Review all public contracts to prevent public institutions and funds from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation.     Pursue justice for international crimes.     Support universal jurisdiction to hold perpetrators accountable. “We came to Bogotá to make history — and we did,” said Colombian President Gustavo Petro. “Together, we have begun the work of ending the era of impunity. These measures show that we will no longer allow international law to be treated as optional, or Palestinian life as disposable.” The measures are not symbolic. They are grounded in binding obligations under international law — including the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation unlawful, and September 2024’s UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/24, which gave states a 12-month deadline to act. UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory Francesca Albanese called them “a momentous step forward.” “The Hague Group was born to advance international law in an era of impunity,” said South Africa’s Foreign Minister, Ronald Lamola. “The measures adopted in Bogotá show that we are serious — and that coordinated state action is possible.” The response from Washington was swift — and revealing. In a threatening statement to journalists, a US State Department spokesperson accused The Hague Group of “seeking to isolate Israel” and warned that the US would “aggressively defend our interests, our military, and our allies, including Israel, from such coordinated legal and diplomatic” actions. But instead of deterring action, the threats have only clarified the stakes. In Bogotá, states did not flinch. They acted — and they invite the world to join them. The deadline for further states to take up the measures is now two months away. And with it, the pressure is mounting for governments across the world — from Brazil to Ireland, Chile to Spain — to match words with action. As Albanese said, “the clock is now ticking for states — from Europe to the Arab world and beyond — to join them.” This is not a moment to observe. It is a moment to act. Share the Joint Statement from Bogotá and popularise the six measures. Write to your elected representative and your government and demand they sign on before 20 September. History was made in Bogotá. Now, it’s up to all of us to ensure it becomes reality, that Palestinian life is not disposable and international law is not optional. The era of impunity is coming to an end. Palestine is not alone. In solidarity, The Progressive International Secretariat  
    • Most countries charge for entry to museums and galleries, often a different rate for locals (tax payers) and foreign nationals. The National Gallery could do this, also places like the Museums in South Kensington, the British Library and other tax-funded institutions. Many cities abroad add a tourist tax to hotel bills. It means tourists help pay for public services.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...