CPZ: Proposed Controlled Parking in East Dulwich

[MarkT]

"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."

[TheArtfulDogger]

It does feel like Soutwark are using project fear tactics

If you don't have the CPZ you will suffer increases in commuters because others have got one

It will allow you to park, despite only a few streets having issues

Personally it would have been a better tactic by the council if they let the dog kennel hill CPZ settle in first, then residents in Peckham west and east Dulwich could see what the long term effects were to allow people to make an informed decision.

With response to markt's points above, would a bad interpretation of the results allow for a legal challenge ?

[ed_pete]

MarkT Wrote:

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

>

> 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."

>

This really, really bugs me - questions 10 and 11 should have an explicit option for "No I do not want a CPZ" - very poor biased design of the questionnaire. I will use the "Other" to express my preference - "1 minute @ 3am on Dec 25th only" should cover it.

[TJ]

For one could not walk/ cycle to do my weekly lordship lane shop of meat, veg, dry cleaning, maybe popcorn, a spontaneous purchase or two, and two small children in tow. It requires a car as a dumping ground..

Really, this cpz is a farce, we all know it, and I am totally against it as it will hit our small yet thriving high street.

[Eileen]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi MarkT,

> I'm saying that the proposed area for each of the

> CPZ zones could be subdivided and that ideally the

> East Dulwich would be down the middle of Lordship

> Lane with different limited hours of operation

> each side. So at any time people can still park

> for free if they choose the right side. That would

> hopefully avoid the negative problems traders are

> understandable very nervous about. It should also

> mean more free spaces to park for visitors as the

> dumped car, very long time parked cars are moved

> on.

> My point about West Peckham proposed CPZ one side

> of Grove Vale is the hope that the East Dulwich

> side will operate also at a different times.

James - can you comment on these points:

* how the limited time of paid parking for a couple of hours works to stop commuters paying on their phones?

* will those of us in the Bellenden area (so called now by the Council 'West Peckham') not be able to use Bellenden CPZ permits to park in East Dulwich as it is a separate CPZ?

* I had heard from Peckham town centre CPZ residents that they can park only in streets near them not the whole of the town centre CPZ. Are you sure it is throughout the zone our own street is in?

* If we get the CPZ, your idea of different times on either side of Lordship Lane sounds useful. Does that relate in any way to the timing for Bellenden which is also adjacent to the north?

[tropica]

I love Mr Barber's suggestion that we have different CPZ hours either side of Lordship Lane. Will someone play music as cars race from one side to the other?

[jimlad48]

TJ Wrote:

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

> For one could not walk/ cycle to do my weekly

> lordship lane shop of meat, veg, dry cleaning,

> maybe popcorn, a spontaneous purchase or two, and

> two small children in tow. It requires a car as a

> dumping ground..

> Really, this cpz is a farce, we all know it, and I

> am totally against it as it will hit our small yet

> thriving high street.

Of course you can still do this. You will still be able to park in one of the parking bays and pay and display. You are not being stopped from parking at all - merely having to make a small payment to do so.

[TheArtfulDogger]

tropica Wrote:

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

> I love Mr Barber's suggestion that we have

> different CPZ hours either side of Lordship Lane.

> Will someone play music as cars race from one

> side to the other?

The theme tune to Benny Hill perhaps ? 🤔

[wellington]

I live on Tarbert Road and have not received any consultation documents. I was aware of the new CPZ consultation from reading the EDF and so have completed the online questionnaire but other residents may not have. My neighbours and I regularly struggle to find parking during the working day so I?m concerned we won?t be heard if we haven?t been formally consulted.

[bels123]

Suggest knocking on your neighbours? doors to spread the word, and try to give as many the link to the online consultation

[Ampersand]

Nobody did. Classic straw man. Just as well they invented public transport then, eh?

>

> It?s appalling to tell people they are lazy

> because they don?t walk or cycle to the shops. You

> never truly know the reasons, anxieties and

> situations as to why people make their

> choices.Some people with significant physical and

> mental impairments but not severe disability won?t

> qualify for a blue badge. I live on Dunstans road

> so for me it?s quick and easy to whizz down the

> hill to Lordship lane on my bike and it?s really

> nice in the sunshine but it?s a tough long long

> steep sweaty incline to get back home and harder

> when it?s raining or windy. I imagine it wouldn?t

> be easy to do with children or lots of shopping or

> with my dad. Frequent daily shopping might not be

> an option for everyone so they are more likely to

> use online options which will affect local

> business.

>

>

>

[dulwichresident01]

Only 98 residents have asked for this since 2015...is this what you class as a ?lot? of people Southwark??

[Sue]

dulwichresident01 Wrote:

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

> The problem we face is this...the council do not

> give the simple question on their survey of...do

> you want this...?yes? or ?no??

Erm, yes they do. And they make it very clear.

But you can also put all the comments you want to in the very last question right at the end.

[goldilocks]

For those asking how the two hour slot would prevent commuters paying remotely, you need to read the consultation to see what the proposal is on specific roads. There are different types of bays proposed. Some are mixed resident and pay and display and some resident only which means it?s not possible to pay and display on those roads (know it?s pay by phone but thought pay and display might be easier for people to understand)

[nxjen]

Yes, the issue of commuters paying remotely is a bit of a red herring. Looking at the consultation documents, proportionately very few parking bays are marked green indicating Pay and Display.

[goldilocks]

There are however some bays which are pay and display only which I think is important to note too. For the roads around the station in particular these will be important as residents won?t be able to use them so they will be available for users of local businesses. For places like GM and therapy this is likely to be helpful as the maximum time has increased (though as today only the first 30 mins is free). For those going for a haircut or beauty treatment then 30 mins was always too short and the alternative was driving round trying to find an elusive space on the roads near the station!

[James Barber]

Hi mrwb,

Actually local councils do own local roads. They also have a statutory duty to maintain them. They are shown as assets in their books.

[janepinkcat]

As a resident who can very rarely park in my own street I strongly support the east dulwich CPZ, it's ludicrous that we sometimes have to constantly circle the local area to get parked ten minutes from home. It will only get worse for those of us near to the new health centre and who are near to east dulwich station. I'm seriously considering boycotting local shops who are supporting the ridiculous 'save our high street' petition.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I posted this on another thread, but didn't get an answer: If we're going to create a hierarchy in terms of who 'deserves' use of the public highway most - why do residents come at the top of that list? Is it more 'legitimate' for me to use the street to store a car outside my house, than for a teacher to use it for getting to work? CPZs seem to be predicated on there being an 'entitlement' on the part of residents to exclusive, or at least priority use of the bit of road outside their property? I thought the roads were paid for through general taxation and intended as a public amenity? Rather than discussing the particulars, can someone explain the principle first?

[mrwb]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi mrwb,

> Actually local councils do own local roads. They

> also have a statutory duty to maintain them. They

> are shown as assets in their books.

False

http://www.roads.org.uk/roadsfaq#11

They may be managed by the concil and put on the balance sheet but they are owned by the public.

The government which is elected by the public allows the council to manage them and do this. Quite why they're allowed to profit from doing so with a CPZ is a mystery? Maybe so the councils fat cat CEO can make 197k a year?

The government could change this if they wanted to, and if they were elected to do so.

The CPZ is just a tax to pay for road upkeep and other transport things that would usually be paid by council tax.

It is in effect a rise in council tax for everyone owning a car.

[colville09]

Actually, it's not just car owners. We don't have a car but will have to buy visitors permits for repair people and anyone visiting us.

[James Barber]

Or mrwb, a reduction for those who don't own a car who pay for the upkeep of local roads to exactly the same degree as car owners.

[colville09]

Sorry James, I don't understand your last post. Do you mean there is a proposed reduction scheme for non car owning residents who will have to buy visitors permits. What does Mrwb mean. Thanks

[Earl Aelfheah]

The people arguing in favour of a CPZ claim that there are loads of commuters parking in ED during the day, not to work here, but to use our exceptional public transport - evidenced by the fact that you can park more easily in the evenings and at weekends, but...

If you're a resident using your car to travel out of ED to work, you likely won't need a local parking space except for in the evenings and at weekends.

If you're not using your car to travel into town (i.e it's parked outside your house during the day), you already have a space.

So by your own logic, resident parking only really becomes an issue if you're using your car for short, local journeys during the day. I'm not sure we should be prioritising this type of use over, say, the person travelling in form Hayes to work at a local nursery (for example).

[Earl Aelfheah]

.. which leads me back to the question I posed above.