E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[Moos]

A very strange plan exclusive of some obvious streets - however, Ondine road is an easy 5 minute stroll to the station.

[peckhamboy]

Moos - the GV end of it is, but the other end of Ondine (by St Johns school/Goose Green) is in the zone as well, and that must be close to a 10 minute walk to the station. The only reason I can see for that is that school parking will be pushed onto Adys Rd almost exclusively, create more congestion and ultimately the CPZ will extend down Amott Rd, Nutbrook St etc as well, until the whole area from PR station down to Herne Hill is covered by a CPZ. Then it really will be like living in Clapham.

And all because someone at the Council "estimates" that "on average about 20%" of vehicles on some streets don't belong to people who live there. So I guess every street off Lordship Lane is ripe for a CPZ as well because at times probably around 40% of cars don't belong to the people who live there. That's what happens when you choose to buy a house in a location that's convenient for shops and stations.

[Jeremy]

jimmyraj Wrote:

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

> I don't understand why the CPZ consultation

> doesn't cover Quorn Road, opposite the station.

> As far as I'm aware that has no parking

> restrictions yet isn't part of this and is

> probably the nearest road after Melbourne Grove.

Quorn road doesn't get anywhere near as parked up as Melbourne Grove and the roads around it.

Maybe people don't like parking there because of the estate (even though it's absolutely fine).

[Penguin68]

That's what happens when you choose to buy a house in a location that's convenient for shops and stations.

Although you will have bought, or moved, without realising that you (and your visiting friends, until they stop visiting) will have to pay a premium if you have cars, and of course visiting tradespeople will now be charging you more because it costs more for them to visit. Your local inflation rate is going to soar well above the 5.2% (CPI) or 5.6% (RPI which includes housing costs, which these will be). And, because 80% of the cars (by the council's own weird figures) are still local, and car ownership is going up - you still (you initiating complainers) won't be able to park close to your own houses, and (miracle of miracles) you may not even be able to park in adjacent streets any more, as soon as the council (as it will) severly limits the zones where your annual fee will entitle you to park.

But good news, the shops will soon start shutting down, as they lose visiting customers and as the district turns into a parking enforcement nightmare. So maybe some congestion will ease, although of course by then it won't be 'conveniant for shops' - because they won't be there. But at least we'll get some affordable housing, as prices fall because of the increased costs of living here, and the reduced benfits of doing so. Or maybe, you lib dem and tory voting house owners you won't think that's a good thing. But why should the council care? And they won't.

[prickle]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> This is nothing to do with what residents want and

> everything to do with revenue generation - the

> area is precisely chosen to ensure that there will

> be intended consequences - leading to more calls

> for control by a few in the newly effected roads,

> and extension of the CPZ and later on ramped-up

> prices. All of you close to ED station - and soon

> to be not so close at all to ED station are a

> little pot of gold waiting to be dug up by the

> council - you vote lib dem or Tory, so they aren't

> going to lose any votes over it. It really doesn't

> matter what you say in your feedback, you are

> going to get a CPZ, it's going to be extended and

> extended and you will end up paying through the

> nose for what once was free.

Agree that CPZ is a cash cow for the council but the Tory/Lib Dem coalition is partly to blame. All councils are looking for alternative sources of income as a result of the coalition choosing to freeze the Council tax.

[Peckhampam]

Penguin 68....it is rather presumptuous of you to think you know how I vote!!!

[kford]

Agreed - all parties are at it. Tory Barnet and Westminster are among the worst in the country.

[Peckhampam]

Penguin 68-its a bit presumptuous to you to think you know how I vote!

[bonaome]

I have emailed [email protected] with the following questions, I have cc'd [email protected], [email protected]

I urge you to send questions and comments on to the official email address and not confine any objections here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hello, I wonder if you could help me with some queries I have over the proposed Grove Vale Controlled Parking Zone.

1) In the consultation document, you state "We have studied the pattern of parking in the area and have found that on average 20% of vehicles parked in the area during the daytime week are commuters or non-residents." Could you tell me the details of how you got to this figure?

2) Is there no obligation on the council to produce a consultation document which is unbiased and factual? The document presents a great many things as benefits of a residents' parking scheme which are in fact unconnected. In particular the consultation document mentions a number of road safety benefits under the banner of creating the CPZ. In themselves the safely benefits are no doubt valuable, but tying the safety improvements together with the introduction of a residents' parking scheme seems misleading.

For instance: -

a) The consultation document says that the CPZ will offer "A safer road environment for all motorists, cyclists and pedestrians due to less dangerous parking." If it's safety that's an issue please could you tell me why this is not being address with double yellow lines? I think it's very misleading to position safety improvements as a benefit of the proposed resident's parking scheme by wrapping up the two different things together as you have.

b) The consultation document says that the CPZ will offer "Reduced traffic congestion with less obstructive parking as bays will show where it is safe to park and yellow lines where it is not ..." - Wouldn't yellow/red single/double lines achieve the safety improvement better and more cheaply?

c) The document says "Yellow lines at junctions will ensure better visibility for all road users, including pedestrians, by keeping them clear of parked cars." - Again, yellow lines wrapped up with a residents' parking scheme. If visibility is an issue, then the yellow lines should be painted independent of a residents' parking scheme. Why have you tied these two things together?

d) The document says the CPZ will lead to "A safer road environment for all motorists, cyclists and pedestrians due to less dangerous parking." - As above, surely a residents' parking scheme is not the way to control dangerous parking.

There are some other practical issues I would like to query.

3) The document says the CPZ will lead to "Greater access for emergency vehicles, as we will be able to maintain a safe width on narrow or busy roads." Does this mean that you are planning to have the bays on some streets partly on the pavement? Or are you planning to narrow the pavement and widen the road on some streets?

4) The document says the CPZ will lead to "Improved public realm due to the reduction of parked cars." Could you tell me the percentage reduction in parked cars that you expect?

5) The consultation document says, "By reducing parking pressure, CPZs make other street improvements such as trees and on-street cycle parking more acceptable" Is it not the case that the environment will become more cluttered both visually, with sineage for information about the CPZ's operation, and physically with pay and display machines?

I look forward to your replies on these matters.

[sophiesofa]

I know it's on the other page but here is a link to the survey that was only promoted to people who live within the suggested zone. It makes me so angry that only these residents have been consulted when it will affect so many more residents / business owners.

Grove vale CPZ survey

[sophiesofa]

For reference (and mini moan):

1 year permit ?125.00 - not cheap

1 year business permit ?525.00 - I'm npt a local business but why would theirs be over 4x more than a residents? Presumably businesses will suffer as it is as people may not be able to pop in (depending on the cpz hours) as conveniently?

Visitor book ?16 for ten, one-day permits.(1st book)

?36 for ten, one-day permits (2nd + book per year)

Average pay and display charge ?2.70 per hour

[bloonoo]

that's ridiculous, so say for example if you're hosting your child's birthday party and you have 10 guests who all drive to the party that will last 3 hours, you'd have to pay ?16 (or ?32 if its your second book) to allow them to park? i wonder if anyone who works at the council lives in permitted areas and whether they get discount/special allowances, surely no one would agree with them.

[garnwba]

bloonoo - incorrect, unless you are holding your children's party between 12-2 (one of the proposed options) on a weekday.... which would be a bit strange wouldn't it?

[Penguin68]

Penguin 68-its a bit presumptuous to you to think you know how I vote!

Of course it is, and I was using hyperbole for effect - but in Southwark, ED and Dulwich are the distant heel of the borough boot, and like all heels will be crushed and worn down. If a Labour controlled council can raise revenues from wards which are not wholeheartedly labour, why wouldn't they? And why would they care if in doing so they reduce the value and joy of living somewhere most of their supporters don't.

You could argue this was a valid form of redistribution - if you wanted to - but I prefer my taxation to be overt and part of a political platform which I can vote for, not slid through wearing false colours.

Frankly those who think they are voting for an end to congested parking (for them) and easy parking outside their houses are wheeling in the biggest Trojan horse they could imagine, and they, and we, are all going to be slaughtered.

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes the poet sang, and boy are these greek gifts poisonous.

[Ris2011]

As noted on my previous post we are collecting signatures from the surrounding roads of the CPZ to show Southwark that many people in East Dulwich object to this proposal. Thus far i have had volunteers (including myself) to go around the following roads:

hinckley

gowlett

keston

Nutfield

Archdale

Frogley

Northcross

If you live on a street affected and want to stop southwark getting this proposal through please PM me and i will send you the template.

Thanks

[Freddy1929]

you would be surprised - they park in Spurling Rd for the Station, and it's the other side of the roundabout at Goose Green! Can't wait for the Council to put CPZ in Spurling, I know, I know, I am the exception, wanting a CPZ and wanting to pay money to the Council!!

[Freddy1929]

Bit off the wall, I know, but why not ask your guests to use a bus or train, most kids I know see a trip on public transport as great fun becauce they travel by cars all the time.

[Ris2011]

I have had another volunteer for Everthopre Road - please let me know if you can gather signatures on your road to stop the Controlled Parking Zone.

Roads we are gathering signatures:

everthopre

hinckley

gowlett

keston

Nutfield

Archdale

Frogley

Northcross

Regards

[Penguin68]

Gathering signatures is great, and very public spirited.

Here are the results of the poll - 'the residents have decided in favour of a CPZ, to operate throughout the working day'

Of course, lots of people will say they didn't vote for that, and eventually, if James presses hard enough, we will hear that although there were a number of votes against, these came from individuals outside the area being polled. [i am not saying that people inside the area will actually vote that way, but how will we know?]

And unless someone acually re-runs the poll we will never know the true results - and who will be bothered, or can afford to do that? And even if it is done, the council will say it's not the offical poll, so doesn't count. Remember how Ken treated those who wanted to resist the extension of the congestion zone. Local democracy? - one day every 4 years or whatever.

And the really sad thing is that councils ignoring what people want is so commonplace that Private Eye's 'Rotten Boroughs' won't even be interested.

[Bobby P]

Have filled out the online form - against of course.

The questions thereupon are very much loaded to give you an option of a) a CPZ or b) a more restrictive CPZ. So you can see which way the Council is thinking. I do have the sinking feeling that they will put this in whatever the vote, which will really be a disaster and very much the thin end of the wedge.

I don't have ?125 plus visitors plus inevitable attempted fines to spare in these straightened times, and the hassle factor (being a previous CPZ resident) is getting me stressed just thinking about it. Stiff drink needed!

[garnwba]

RIS2011 - getting signatures from roads near the CPZ makes sense, but seriously gowlett, Keston.... i mean why don't you drum up some opinions in Nunhead, Forest Hill area as well.

These roads can't seriously believe they will be effected by the introduction of the CPZ near ED station... unless of course they drive to the station every morning..... oh hang on...

[Ris2011]

I have never suggested any roads to gather signatures from, I am just providing the template for people to use- who am I to say that certain roads won't be affected? I do not know how congested these roads are but if people who live on these street are concerned that the CPZ proposal will affect them and are willing to give up there own personal time to make a change then how can you judge this?

I hope the comments above have not put anyone off gathering signatures, if you feel you will be affected then please get in touch.

[peckhamboy]

Given the proposed CPZ goes up to the end of Ondine Rd, so within spitting distance of Gowlett Rd, I don't think you can say they're not affected - it's pretty obvious that once a CPZ comes in, it quickly expands and I would have thought Gowlett would be in the next wave.

[peterstorm1985]

garnwba Wrote:

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

> RIS2011 - getting signatures from roads near the

> CPZ makes sense, but seriously gowlett, Keston....

> i mean why don't you drum up some opinions in

> Nunhead, Forest Hill area as well.

Once we have a CPZ in the roads proposed it will massively increase pressure on the adjacent roads to the point that some - or enough for Southwark to leap at the opportunity - are persuaded, and then it will be rolled out across the whole of ED, so asking people in Nunhead and Forest Hill may become relevant sooner than you think.

[calculus]

This seems very sneaky of Southwark. If they wanted to stop commuters parking they only need to implement a control for a couple of hours in the middle of the day. This is clearly a blatant money making scheme, an ill thought out one at that, that they are trying to sneak in the back door. I live on Matham Grove which will become more of a nightmare with this proposal, and I will have only one direction to venture for spaces when my street has no spaces left, thus moving the problem to another area.

I am also very surprised there has been no input from local councillors on this thread as they usually like to chime in on these issues...

Pathetic... I for one will be contesting this.