CPZ: Proposed Controlled Parking in East Dulwich

[Penguin68]

The question you have to add to this to make sense of it is travel frequency. Not how much per journey but also how much per time period. Someone travelling from a given point (some distance away from LL) and driving may well go more frequently, but spend less on each individual trip. Walking or cycling may be a 'bigger' ask (it will certainly take more time, putting time taken to look for a parking space aside). So the equation is probably distance plus frequency plus spend in order to make sense of these figures. If I live in LL then I will walk to shops and, since I can, spend more. If I live well away from LL I will have to travel further, but, if I drive, may travel more frequently.

Again, if I live on a bus route which takes me to LL I am more likely to make that trip than if getting there by public transport is more difficult or unreliable.

The simplistic figures provided by TfL need to be explained. There is otherwise no obvious mechanism whereby people who drive buy less than people who don't. Indeed and in general I would expect car ownership to be more closely correlated with higher levels of consumption.

[Sally Eva]

car ownership is expensive. Many people don't have cars because they cannot afford them, this is true, but an inference that those who walk and cycle are poorer than those who drive may not be true. Not having a car is a money saving decision in itself. That money then becomes available to spend on other things.

[ED_moots]

Consultation link is here... https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/eastdulwichparking/

Deadline is 31st January.

Map of area attache.

[ED_moots]

Consultation link is here... https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/eastdulwichparking/

Deadline is 31st January.

Map of area attached.

[trinidad]

As well as the proposed East Dulwhich Parking Zone, and healthier streets, there is also a number of adjustant streets which form the Peckham West Parking Zone and heather streets.

These streets include:

Map one Map two Map three

Choumert Road Oxenford Street Fenwick Road

Danby Street Marsden Road Fenwick Grove

Avondale Rise Muschamp Road Gowlett Road

Bellenden Road Ondine Road Keston Road

Oglander Road Everthorpe Road Amott Roads

Copleston Road Hayes Grove Hinckley Road

Adys Road Ondine Road Nutbrook Street

Maxted Road East Dulwich Road Howden street

Wingfield Street

Maxted Road

Waghorn street

The consultation link for the west Peckham is: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/peckhamwestparking/

This is injunction with the proposed East Dulwhich Parking and healthy streets study.

There are also two consultation meetings planed:

22nd January 2019 2:00PM - 3:30PM (business owners / traders)

Goose Green Community Centre, 62A East Dulwich Road SE22 9AT

23rd January 2019 4:00pm - 8:00pm (drop in)

St Johns Church, 62A East Dulwich Road SE22 9AT

The council has provided options for restrictions on the streets listed, with a suggestion to blanket restriction most of the streets with of 8:30am - 6:30pm Monday to Friday, and a charge of ?125 per year, per car (?577.50 business vehicle)

Please read the hard copy of the consultation, please click on the link above, please attend the one consultation meeting. Please let the council have your views by 31st January 2019

[chazzle]

With these CPZs, is the permit specific to one CPZ? So, if you live on the border between two, you can only use one side? This could be a real pain.

[Earl Aelfheah]

TheArtfulDogger Wrote:

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

> Food for thought over this discussion

>

> With the proposed ultra low emmision zone set to

> be introduced in 2021, cars in East Dulwich will

> have to meet the new emissions standards, be

> electric or have a daily charge imposed to use

> them.

>

> This should reduce the number of diesel and older

> polluting cars in or entering the area

>

> It will also lower the out of area commuters using

> East Dulwich as they will have to pay to get here

> unless their cars meet the new standards

>

> Will this be enough to reduce the particulates

> element behind some people wanting a CPZ ?

> Especially as a CPZ won't be introduced until just

> before 2021 so proving if the CPZ worked or if it

> was the ULEZ will be difficult as the results will

> be intertwined.

>

> With the argument that the businesses will or

> won't be effected, has anyone asked them for input

> and support (either for or against)

>

> Maybe this is a call to action for the East

> Dulwich Action group as they claim to represent

> the traders 🤔

>

> Regardless people should get online and do the

> survey to get their views represented otherwise,

> like most things, if the result isn't what you

> want there can be no whinging after if you didn't

> put your official response in.

I actually think the ULEZ will do more to reduce the number of vehicles in the area than any CPZ will do.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The 'consultation' period is pretty short, no?

[ed_pete]

chazzle Wrote:

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

> With these CPZs, is the permit specific to one

> CPZ? So, if you live on the border between two,

> you can only use one side? This could be a real

> pain.

Pretty sure that the answer is no. Your permit only allows you to park in your CPZ, not others. Not great for those that live close to the border or who have a need to park in another zone in Southwark.

[chazzle]

Up by the station, the North end of Melbourne Grove is mostly paid parking bays, increasing distance to a parking spot. Other side of the bridge would be OK, but different CPZ.

[Earl Aelfheah]

There is a question along the lines of

"..if nearby areas vote in favour of a CPZ, would you then like one too (CPZ tend to displace traffic into neighbouring areas)."

So that's nice. If your neighbour lobs their rubbish over the fence, would you like to chuck it over the other side.

[singalto]

Charging cars to park on LL and a CPZ can?t be good for local trade. And phone only payment for two hours means people can park all day and pay for the two hoursfrom wherever they were. Payment should be at a machine. Mind you, I don?t want a CPZ at all.

[se22]

Royal Mail has thousands of the consultation documents to deliver (one per affected household). The consultation period is very short. Given the current state of the local postal system I wonder how many will get delivered in time.

[singalto]

Mine was not delivered by RM.

[Rockets]

The more you look at the consultation documents the more you realise how flawed the council's approach is to this. Their recent extending of double-yellow lines in the area was designed to create parking congestion to help them justify this plan which is nothing more than an East Dulwich tax for the residents and enterprises who live here. The council is cashing in on the thriving community around Lordship Lane and I cannot see how this will do anything other than damage the uniqueness of the area.

East Dulwich currently works and the council is meddling for their own purposes and have been after this pot of gold for years - I do hope everyone sees through it.

I will make sure I attend the drop clinic to ask some pertinent questions as when you look at the proposals it is as ludicrous as Lambeth's Loughborough junction traffic programme which, thankfully, fell flat on its face a year or so after the council implemented it.

For example, has anyone looked at the plan around the leisure centre - from what I can see from the proposals I cannot see how that will work as many people, especially those with small families, drive to the leisure centre and these restrictions will make it impossible to do so (I also chuckled as the ludicrous number of disabled bays which recently appeared in front of the leisure centre are not marked on the proposals - probably because they have served their purpose in creating parking choke points - along with the extended double yellows).

I do hope people don't put their own selfish, well I want to be able to park outside my house arguments to one side and realise that if the council gets away with this Lordship Lane and the surrounding areas will be negatively impacted. Local traders are already mobilising and I suggest others do too, before it is too late.

[singalto]

The consultation pack must have cost a fortune to produce and deliver! And West Peckham?

[Amktlk]

It?s scandalous, the amount of streets included is ridiculous. Daylight robbery. You think the council would be aware of what it costs to live in an overpriced area with high rents, c tax let alone car insurance, tax etc.

[Galileo]

Rockets Wrote:

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

>? ...

>

> For example, has anyone looked at the plan around

> the leisure centre - from what I can see from the

> proposals I cannot see how that will work as many

> people, especially those with small families,

> drive to the leisure centre and these restrictions

> will make it impossible to do so.

...?

The irony of driving to the leisure centre!

I have a 5 year old, 3 year old and 1 year old. We use scooters and use the buggy to get to swimming lessons for the kids. It?s just lovely breathing in the exhaust fumes of those who drive to the leisure centre and then circle a few times trying to find a space as it?s always heavily parked up round there.

[Robert_F]

I?m undecided on whether to be for or against this proposal. I can see some benefits in theory. However, as one previous poster mentioned, in my view the introduction of the extended double yellow lines at the end of all the roads has had more impact on the lack of parking in our immediate area than any other cause of parking congestion. It has been implemented excessively and very inconsistency - for example they put them on all the intersections to Pellatt Road that are not busy, but then didn?t even put them on the junction with Crystal Palace Road! But no use crying over spilt milk now...

Is there any issue with ?commuter / non-resident? parking in the area? Quite possibly. However, I think that a general increase in car ownership by residents has probably had just as much impact. There are many households in and around where we live that have multiple cars - which personally I have no issue with - but it just means space is a bit tighter than it once was.

Also, I do feel sorry for residents that live closer to the station that find people parking outside their houses to get the train. But I am also not sure that the CPZ would stop this as some of the people parking near the station actually also live in the area! I know because a friend of mine who used to live nearby did just that (to my surprise).

[worldwiser]

For clarification, is it proposed to make the entirety of ED a single parking zone that allows residents to park anywhere within it?

I note that in spite of the huge effort, thought and expense the council have gone to, there remains NO attempt to resolve the lack of pedestrian crossing at the LL/EDG junction. Absolutely maddening. No engagement at all on one of most pressing safety issues in the area.

[Robert_F]

worldwiser Wrote:

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

> For clarification, is it proposed to make the

> entirety of ED a single parking zone that allows

> residents to park anywhere within it?

That was my understanding (in the absence of information to the contrary).

[Eileen]

worldwiser Wrote:

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

> For clarification, is it proposed to make the

> entirety of ED a single parking zone that allows

> residents to park anywhere within it?

>

In 'West Peckham' (called North East Dulwich by James Barber...) we are in an enclave barred it seems from using a permit in the Lordship Lane area which is as much our local place as it is the 'East Dulwich' residential area...

[James Barber]

Agree on the LL/EDG junction but CPZ's aren't the mechanism to do that. Work is supposed to be underway to make LL safer from Goose Green to south circular.

[goldilocks]

There are definitely some unresolved issues in the consultation - the fact that at present it looks as though, if approved, that the whole area would be one large CPZ as well as the fact that parking pressures are definitely very localised.

It would be helpful if the council could clarify publically and on the record that it could be possible for specific areas within the consultation to become a CPZ without this having a knock on effect on others where such support doesn't exist. For example, there may be a clear desire for controlled parking on the streets surrounding the train station, but not on those further away from Lordship lane and towards Peckham Rye. Whilst the 'knock on effect' may be concerning, its unlikely that commuter traffic for the station would start to park on streets such as nutbrook or ulverscroft as its too far away.

[Robert_F]

When I lived in Islington there were various ?sub-zones? I think that corresponded to different clusters of Streets. That might be a better idea than one larger area perhaps.