CPZ announced

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I believe there is a drop-in session about the CPZ at Amott Road Baptist Church this evening (3 Oct).

The info was on a lamppost notice but I'm not sure about the details. Can anyone confirm?

[TheArtfulDogger]

Looks like Southwark will be pulling off the miracle of a white (wash) Christmas

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50021413&Opt=0

Decision not before 23rd December but you can bet it happens over Christmas and the resident and business objections have been disregarded

As said before by others, the council see it as a way of supplementing their coffers as whilst the revenue raised from it is ring fenced, it doesn't stop them from reducing how much other funding is placed in the road improvement pot by the same amount as the cpz generates and moving that funding elsewhere

Some call it creative accounting...

[first mate]

It is interesting that the council is now open to reducing double yellows on some streets within the proposed CPZ to create more permit spaces. Yet, not so long ago, extending double yellows, thereby artificially creating parking pressure, was pushed through by the council as a vital safety measure.

[ED_moots]

What a stitch up! Much reduced parking on MG as a result. Double yellows over all the dropped curbs and beyond, you couldn't park a mini on most of these 'driveways' so anyone that used to park over their frontage will now compete for residents bays. At the northern end over 30 properties are eligible for permits for about 5 spaces up to the middle of MG. And 125 quid charge for the privilege.

I find it disgraceful that southwark have fudged this through with the support of a small vocal minority.

Anyone else feel like not buying a permit or paying the fines? I don't see that any objections were given due consideration. Expect the zone to creep within a year.

[bob]

Well spotted FM

[Sporthuntor]

34 objections, 33 rejected. This borough is like North Korea. I hope we all remember this when the next local elections come around. No support from our local councillors (again)

[hammerman]

Local councillors seem to have lost touch about local issues and would rather it all comes down to something to do with Brexit.

I have had no support from local councillors and don't know which way to turn.

[Penguin68]

34 objections, 33 rejected. This borough is like North Korea. I hope we all remember this when the next local elections come around. No support from our local councillors (again)

Can I perhaps refer you back to a thread I started in March this (just!) year.

https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,2015611,2027910#msg-2027910

[DadOf4]

parking (excuse the pun) the merits and problems of a CPZ for the moment, does anybody know what happens next and when ?

i.e. when will be see new lines being painted and permits issued/enforced ?

I read somewhere about a formal consultation period - is that whats currently happening ?

[Earl Aelfheah]

I would support wide spread traffic exclusion in an attempt to increase active travel and to improve the environment. I strongly disapprove of privatising public space for car storage in this way. It's go nothing to do with 'health streets' and I wish the council would be straight forward about it.

The approach seems to constantly knee jerk to a shouty minority, rather than take a considered strategic approach to managing traffic in the area.

[peckhamside]

I have not read all the posts but in case this is being monitored by local Councillors to keep abreast of local views.

1. I agree with rahrahrah- we need to discourage car ownership and use in the local area.

2. Roads are owned by all-including those without a car, so reasonable that car owners pay more to use the space.

3. Current Borough wide permit system for CPZ is too liberal, up to three permits per address and no increase in charges for second and third permits. I suggest limit of two and increase in fee for second car to discourage multiple car ownership.

Number and size of cars (SUV!!)does seem to be increasing. All the fuss about single use plastic etc. and carbon emissions from vehicles which is 18% (I think) must be increasing!!

[Earl Aelfheah]

The increase in SUVs is ridiculous. If we really want to get people our of their cars then there needs to be a great deal more pedestrianisation in the area and segregated / traffic free cycle and pedestrian routes between local schools, public transport hubs and town centres. I would also like to see electric bike hire schemes encouraged in the south of the borough. Currently they do not operate in East Dulwich.

[Earl Aelfheah]

CPZs encourage people to own cars. Speed bumps incrase pollution. These seem to be the Councils main 'green' policies at the moment.

[ED_moots]

Update: Cabinet approves CPZ as proposed.

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50021413&Opt=0

Received this email today:

Good morning,

I am writing in response to your representation, or request for project updates, to the East Dulwich Controlled Parking Zone.

In accordance with Regulation 13 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 the council has considered your representation and a decision has been taken by the relevant decision maker as set out in the Southwark Council?s constitution.

Consideration of the representation

Your representation was considered by The Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport and the Climate Emergency on 23 December 2019.

Summary of decision

In consideration of any objections received, the council has:

Determined each of the objections included in the correspondence, in line with the reasoning in Appendix 1 of the report

Decided to make the traffic management order as originally proposed.

Reasons for decision

The reasons for the decision can be found here.

Traffic Orders:

In view of the above, the council will make the following orders and a notice of making will be published:

The London Borough of Southwark (Parking places) (Parking zone 'ED') (No. *) Order 202*

The London Borough of Southwark (Free parking places) (No. *) Order 202*

The London Borough of Southwark (Free parking places) (Solo motor cycles) (No. *) Order 202*

The London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) (Amendment No. *) Order 202*

Further information

For further details on the project including the latest programme information, please see the project webpage here. Should you require any further information, please contact us via email at [email protected].

Kind regards,

Rebecca Barkham

Project Manager

Highways | Department Environment & Leisure

London Borough of Southwark

PO Box 64529, London SE1P 5LX

Visitors: 160 Tooley Street, SE1 2QH

[bobbsy]

Why do we want to get people out of cars? Cars are useful tools, and the problems of emissions and pollution are being tackled.

[Asset]

4/10

[bobbsy]

No, a serious question. I'm aware this seems to be important for some, but it's not for me and not for my circle of friends and colleagues. I view the problem of emissions as serious, but otherwise I view cars as valuable and I have no plans to live a carless life anytime soon.

[Abe_froeman]

The two most frequent motivations for getting people out of cars are 1) politics of envy or 2)being part of the fanatical cycling lobby.

[Huggers]

CPZ will make no difference to amount of cars used, but might stop peoples non local relatives parking their campervans in the streets. Its a cynical financial thing for the council. We voted against it but they are pushing it through anyway.

[DuncanW]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> The two most frequent motivations for getting

> people out of cars are 1) politics of envy or

> 2)being part of the fanatical cycling lobby.

Really?? - How did you come to that conclusion, Abe?

[micromacromonkey]

Huggers Wrote:

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

> CPZ will make no difference to amount of cars

> used, but might stop peoples non local relatives

> parking their campervans in the streets. Its a

> cynical financial thing for the council. We voted

> against it but they are pushing it through anyway.

Don't quite understand the obsession with how much this costs. It's a tiny fraction of the cost of running a car.

I am considering getting rid of my car as a result of this (and the ULEZ), given that living in London it is rarely required (going to the tip and B+Q are my only uses for it really).

[Earl Aelfheah]

The CPZ is not about reducing car use. If anything it encourages people to keep a car. It certainly increases the already high sense of entitlement that most car users have with regards domination over public space.

[roywj]

Agree with your previous posts about reducing car use and I believe that the CPZ will reduce commuters traveling to and parking in the CPZ area. I think it's a step in the right direction and certainly doesn't encourage people to keep a car due to the additional cost and less availability of parking due to parking controls.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> The CPZ is not about reducing car use. If anything

> it encourages people to keep a car. It certainly

> increases the already high sense of entitlement

> that most car users have with regards domination

> over public space.