E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[gmackenney]

Don't doubt it's stressful - our stress is not as acute, but we live on the edge of the CPZ behind a run of shops and near a playground which places inevitable stress on our parking. We rarely park right outside our house, and often have to park in adjacent roads. This isn't an issue which is confined to the roads near to the station. That said, I definitely don't want a CPZ because I think it will just make things much less flexible - fewer spaces to park in, restrictions on where you can park due to zoning etc.

One thing I would say is that we need to look at how much we think the parking pressure is going to be eased by this CPZ. Looking at the data for Derwent Grove specifically - on a weekday, 21% of the spaces are occupied by visitors / commuters. On a weekend that number is 14%. Presuming that the difference between a weekday and the weekend is commuters, you'll effectively reduce parking stress by 7% on weekdays assuming that the remaining visitors will still visit albeit outside the CPZ hours (10-12?). If the number of spaces lost to the CPZ is above 7%, it is likely that you'll still have problems parking in your street outside the CPZ hours.

Our car tends to see most use at the weekend, when we visit relatives etc. This could explain why you have fewer problems at the weekend than during the week. As for the evenings, naturally commuters will go home, but so will patrons of the local businesses. It's been said many times before, but the largest contributor to the number of spaces used is the residents themselves and a CPZ shouldn't affect this much.

I appreciate that you have real problems parking and that it is very difficult with small children (I have 2 young children myself). However, if we assume the data supplied by James is accurate, there is a great deal of doubt as to whether a real benefit would arise. Apologies if I sound like a stuck record, but we need all the facts in front of us, including the number of spaces lost. I received a reply from Paul Gellard to my email today and he has said that more data will be available at the open days at GV library - as to whether this will include 'lost spaces' not sure.

[bonaome]

Councillor Barrie Hargrove Cabinet Member for Transport, Environment and Recycling won;t be at the surgery at Peckham Library tonight, but he will be there next Friday, 4th October.

You don't need an appointment.

I'm planning to go with a few questions.

[sandyman]

One of the consequences of a CPZ at East Dulwich station will surely be that commuters will start parking around north dulwich station where it is usually pretty easy to park. Which means that if a CPZ is started at ED it won't be long before it spreads to ND Station too.

I presume the reason that the CPZ at Herne Hill didn't cause commuters to change to ND is because HH is on a different line. ND is the next station down from London Bridge on same line.

[sophiesofa]

sandyman Wrote:

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

> One of the consequences of a CPZ at East Dulwich

> station will surely be that commuters will start

> parking around north dulwich station where it is

> usually pretty easy to park. Which means that if a

> CPZ is started at ED it won't be long before it

> spreads to ND Station too.

>

> I presume the reason that the CPZ at Herne Hill

> didn't cause commuters to change to ND is because

> HH is on a different line. ND is the next station

> down from London Bridge on same line.

Is North Dulwich station in the same rail pricing band? I have no idea but it might make a difference.

[sliding_doors]

I live on Melbourne Grove and I was initially in favour and filled out the consultation document strongly supporting the proposal. I simply thought that a CPZ would ensure there would always be a parking space for me - how could that be a bad thing?

However, having read through all 8 pages of debate I changed my mind and now think that a CPZ will just be an unnecessary hassle. Realistically I only struggle finding a space to park on Melbourne Grove a few times a year and it's not worth paying ?100+ to solve this, not to mention the added hassle of visitor fees.

I've changed my answers to reflect these views but I just wonder how many other 'residents' have jumped to support the proposal without really thinking about the full impact and hassle of having a CPZ? I certainly wouldn't have thought about it if I hadn't seen this thread on the forum. The document does seem to push you towards the supporting the proposal. For example it doesn't lay out the disadvantages in a simple format (e.g. problems for local businesses, visitor problems, costs of permits)

[Bobby P]

Sliding doors, thanks for the honest posting about your change of views after looking at the issue more closely. Needless to say, I think you've come to the correct decision.

While I don't doubt that parking is sometimes less than ideal on the roads near the station, I think there's ample evidence on this long, analytical and well argued thread to indicate that a CPZ will not be the solution. I hope others will ultimately vote with their heads and not with their hearts.

[karter]

Good on sliding doors. A friend who lives on Melbourne also has reversed her decision for the same reasons sliding doors has mentioned. James Barber is knocking on people's doors and not explaining the full impact cpz will have on the Grove Vale community. He is pushing this through and is the front man here. Interesting to read the online chats flying around about this. I hope he doesn't end up being sought after by the people as was Mr Gaddaffi. Bloody tyrants are a nuisance.>:D

[kr988]

1)James Barber was asked by numerous residents for this consultation I think it's unfair to blame him for listening to a fair proportion of his constituents.

2) Please make an informed decision by attending relevant meetings and the Grove library this Saturday and the Wednesday after.I do feel that figures are being quoted by the forum to blind people into making a decision that suits them and not the people currently affected by this problem.

3) Apparently Southwark figures for permit take up is between 4% to 40%. Certainly this favours the argument for displacement parking but also means there should be a definite reduction in congestion on roads near the station in a CPZ,if a maximum of 40%of residents want parking in the day and there is no commuter parking.

4) looking at the plans for Derwent at least it looks like most of the road is available for parking with no bays apart from a pay and display ( that permit holders can use) that I can see . Also apparently Elsie and Melbourne are being consulted on whether they want parking bays outside their drives that they or their visitors can use to maximise

spaces available.

5) 125 pound a year is about 10 pound a month and if a 2 hour parking restriction goes through visitors and tradesman should be able to work around this without extra cost and hopefully park more easily.

6) I totally understand neighbouring roads objecting because they don't wants to face the nightmare parking that some roads are facing but I am disappointed that some on the forum are arguing against CPZ claiming they don't work and are purely revenue generating.Please go to the meetings and get the facts and make an informed decision.

[Saila]

why have they drawn a circle around ED train station, proposed a parking restriction and left out a major section of it? i.e. oglander/everthorpe and oxenford?

what's the logic behind this?

moreover, they chose not consult those residents of the roads left out which will obviously become a car park?

I have no knowledge of CPZ considerations. Is it normal to leave a whole section out like this? Seems completely illogical.

WTF?

[Loz]

kr988 Wrote:

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

> 1)James Barber was asked by numerous residents for this consultation I think it's unfair to blame him

> for listening to a fair proportion of his constituents.

> 2) Please make an informed decision by attending relevant meetings and the Grove library this

> Saturday and the Wednesday after.I do feel that figures are being quoted by the forum to blind

> people into making a decision that suits them and not the people currently affected by this

> problem.

> 3) Apparently Southwark figures for permit take up is between 4% to 40%. Certainly this favours the

> argument for displacement parking but also means there should be a definite reduction in congestion

> on roads near the station in a CPZ,if a maximum of 40% of residents want parking in the day and there

> is no commuter parking.

> 4) looking at the plans for Derwent at least it looks like most of the road is available for

> parking with no bays apart from a pay and display ( that permit holders can use) that I can see .

> Also apparently Elsie and Melbourne are being consulted on whether they want parking bays

> outside their drives that they or their visitors can use to maximise spaces available.

> 5) 125 pound a year is about 10 pound a month and if a 2 hour parking restriction goes through

> visitors and tradesman should be able to work around this without extra cost and hopefully park

> more easily.

> 6) I totally understand neighbouring roads objecting because they don't wants to face the

> nightmare parking that some roads are facing but I am disappointed that some on the forum are arguing

> against CPZ claiming they don't work and are purely revenue generating.Please go to the

> meetings and get the facts and make an informed decision.

Look, I can understand your thinking here. You have a problem, something must be done and this is something. So it must be done. Unfortunately, it is not going to solve your problem (unless, as you seem to hope, that all your neighbours will be too cheap to buy a permit).

As I said before, Southwark are not offering a 12 month trial of the CPZ. Have you ever stopped to wonder why? It's because they don't work. But they do raise a lot of money.

[sairahpillai]

I agree Kr988 . Im thinking we seem to have just enough parking in the evening weekday but we dont have enough parking for residents and commuters in the day. Also it may well be several residents dont need their cars in the weekday so dont need a permit.

[Albert Fegg]

I plan to park in the next road to where I live.

That way, I'll be saving money, giving myself more opportunity to get to know my neighbours by parking outside their house, and getting a little bit more well needed exercise by walking between my house and my car.

Also, I'll be doing my bit for the community by freeing up the space directly outside my house for whoever wants it.

I also think a 'shed swap' scheme would be good, where I use my neighbours shed, and they use mine. That way I'll be able to use their lawnmower while mine is still broken.

[peterstorm1985]

sairahpillai Wrote:

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

> Also it may well be several residents

> dont need their cars in the weekday so dont need a

> permit.

So where will they put their car without a permit? In the adjacent streets of course, which works brilliantly for those in the proposed CPZ, until....... the zone gets extended because the problem in the adjacent streets has gone from simply bad to acute and those non-permit holders resident in the original CPZ area decide it's just too far to leave their cars outside the new zone, and so admit defeat and pay for a permit, taking their cars back to the area around the station.

A quick look at the map of the proposed CPZ shows the particularly limited options for where non-permit holders will park their cars in the future. Many of the streets that are in what Southwark probably already views as the second phase of the CPZ (where many commuters already park), connect with Lordship Lane. These streets have high levels of shoppers and delivery vans parking during the day but, also, all the cars of the shop workers and small businesses that cannot park in LL due to the restricted parking introduced some years ago.

This creates a barrier to the dispersal of additional cars caused by those who don't want to pay for a permit in the proposed CPZ.

Neverthless, I don't blame Mr Barber for his championing of the CPZ (if that's what he's perceived to be doing). Southwark want to make the residential streets safer (which does of course mean reducing available parking spaces) but don't want to plunder restricted budgets to do so. It costs money to put double yellow lines at the ends of every road but, without them, selfish drivers park across the corner drop-kerb that allows pedestrians, particularly those with buggies and wheelchair users, to get from one pavement to the next in a safe manner. The CPZ provides a perfect opportunity to make car drivers pay for enhancements.

It's just such a shame that the benefits of the CPZ may only be short term, and for only a small group of the community, when ultimately so many of us will end up paying for it.

[Chener Books]

> It's just such a shame that the benefits of the CPZ may only be short term, and for only a small group of the community

Derwent Grove would not be a discrete CPZ.

Residents of Derwent Grove need to consider potential displacement within the proposed CPZ.

Whether you calculate Derwent Grove would have more or less residents' parking spaces you need to consider whether residents of Elsie Road and Melboune Grove would start parking in Derwent Grove because it would be less affected than their own streets.

John K

[northlondoner]

There seems to be sone consensus here that the consultation exercise has some pretty glaring omnissions . Anyone know the legal position if the council decides to force the CPZ on us despite a faulty consultation ? Actually just re reading the document, some of it seems pretty nutty. The assertion that CPZs make provisions like " trees and on-pavement cyclist parking more acceptable " is a particular oddity.

[puzzled]

cllr barber is mega buaybody with a deep seated loathing of cars. he believes we should all be forced to ride bloody bikes like he does. people like barber are a menace to any sane community and the sooner he is voted off the council and anything else where he wields his prejudices the better.

[northlondoner]

James B. I am against the cpz but don't subscribe to the view that it's just a revenue raising exercise. That said, how much cash do you think it could raise? Also, it seems this was going to be looked at without even mentioning it to other areas which would be affected. Surely it shouldn't be up to the eagle eyed OP to inform us about plans for such a radical change to the character of our area?

[Pugwash]

In Lambeth, each/or every couple of streets is classed as a seperate zone, so if you are a resident in zone A but cannot with your zone A parking permit park on your street or the next zone A street - you are forced to attempt to go further afield i,e Zone B and get fined. In Clapham whilst working for Lambeth, I parked so far away from the area I needed to visit that I had to get a bus.

I am against CPZ

[Loz]

puzzled Wrote:

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

> cllr barber is mega buaybody with a deep seated loathing of cars. he believes we should all be

> forced to ride bloody bikes like he does. people like barber are a menace to any sane community and

> the sooner he is voted off the council and anything else where he wields his prejudices the better.

Whilst I think that James Barber is completely and utterly wrong regarding championing a CPZ in East Dulwich, I would have to defend him as a councillor. He is hard working, competent and a credit to Southwark council. He just happens to be wrong on this issue. It happens. It does not make him a bad councillor.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Hear, hear, Loz. I don't agree with everything James does but I do admire him for his dedication and the work he does, especially considering the amount of grief he takes on this forum.

[gmackenney]

John K makes a good point. Up to now I had been considering each street an island. Derwent Grove residents need to consider the effect of displacement parking from streets like Elsie where large numbers of spaces are to be lost. The figures suggest a marginal improvement for Derwent, but not all streets in the CPZ will be as lucky.

Also agree with Loz and peckhamgatecrasher. Personal attacks on JB are not helpful. His opinion differs from the majority on here, but at least he's here!

[Penguin68]

I have not understood from the documentation circulated whether the whole new proposed CPZ is to be treated as a unitary whole (permit holders may park anywhere within the CPZ) or, as I suspect, that it will be further zoned, as described by others, including me, above.

If zoning is planned (by far the most luctrative option - and therefore surely the one which will be chosen) then the possible inconvenience level to CPZ residents will be substantially escalated, particularly for those relatively central (i.e. not in periphery roads next to non-CPZ roads).

Put simply, if the number of 'legitimate' (permit allocated) cars in any road is more than the allocated permit spaces (which the high car ownership per tenement, particularly for multiple occupancy houses is likely to mean) then, permit or no, you may not be able to park at all close to your house.

As the housing crisis worsens (with houses not affordable for the young) then the number of adult children, with cars, living still with parents will increase - putting additional pressure on parking. I know of at least one house in the area (there may well be many more) with 5 adults in one family living in one house, all with cars. This trend will only increase. Only one of the adults living there uses their car for work purposes (and he works from home a couple of days a week). The others use public transport/ bikes during the working day - meaning that they have 4 and sometimes 5 cars parked up locally.

The overall Southwark 'cars per household' figures mentioned by James are irrelevant in the specific ED situation.

[Widdy]

A 5 car family...there's the problem! why any family living in a fairly accessible part of London needs that many cars puzzles me. I'm sure there are many houses with 2 or more cars. Maybe a survey of the number of cars per household would give a better idea of why there's parking pressure rather than blaming it all on commuters.

[Chener Books]

Following on from Penguin68's point comes the consideration of the proposed Residents' Parking Permit (RPP) to residents' parking space (RPS) ratio.

Say there are 836 proposed RPSs (when/if Southwark Council reveal its proposed RPS number this calculation can be revisited), would Southwark Council restrict sales of RPPs with regard to the RPSs?

Some examples (based on 836 proposed RPSs):

794 RPP - -5% - allowance for effective visitor and tradesmen parking

836 RPP - same number as RPS

878 RPP - +5% - based on a calculation of likely occupancy

920 RPP - +10% - based on a lower calculation of likely occupancy

?? RPP - RPP issued to anyone who applies

Would Southwark Council sell RPPs where the resident has little chance of using it?

If there is a cap on RPPs, will there be a waiting list for the next "freed up" RPP, or will there be a public auction?

John K

[Penguin68]

It's not a five car family, in reality, it's a two car family with 3 other adults who in times gone by wouldn't have been living at home, because they could have afforded to live somewhere else. That's the point I am making - previously adults wouldn't all be living together - the adult children would have long flown the nest. I could afford to live away from home in my very early twenties, in rented accommodation, by 25 I was buying my first flat. In London. Those days have long gone - so where there are family homes, like ED, they are now being lived in by more adults (even if all in one family). If you like there are 4 family units (what would have been family units) living in one tenement. Girl friends and boyfriends who would be living together are now having to live with their parents, they need the cars to get to see each other and go out and lead their own lives.

And you are right, it is the choices people have made about their need for personal transport in SE London, particularly at weekends when public transport is frequently interrupted, which have brought parking pressure locally. The commuters are an excuse, even though the pressure and reported problems are real. It's actually the moral equivalent of blaming immigrants because there are no jobs or housing - and I feel some of the same xenophobia creeping into some of the 'pro' posts at times - even though figures even quoted by James don't really support this.