Sep 7 2005
A possible solution to the North Dulwich parking problem
Benny
I have just read your post on the CPZ web site, along with Michelle’s lengthy reply, and thought you and others might be interested in my recent email exchange with Tim Walker – see below.
I continue to believe that this issue is not being driven primarily by residents who are concerned about a parking problem, although inevitably there are a few who have a genuine concern, and I do mean a FEW - only 1 in 7 of the 222 residents responding to our survey are actually in favour, and there is no road with a majority in favour. So overall there is a massive majority against (closer in fact to 8 to 1), hence in theory this CPZ scheme should go the same way as its predecessor. Results are:-
For the CPZ proposal 13%
Against 77%
Undecided or neutral 10%
However, we will all have to continually lobby because there is little doubt in my mind that the officers who should be taking a dispassionate view of any assessment are, as you have already indicated, simply not doing so for this particular CPZ assessment. The very fact that they are revisiting the subject so soon after the previous overwhelming rejection should alone make us all deeply suspicious of their real motives. This is further reinforced by the fact that they are not proceeding in a clearly transparent manner despite the fact that the Council’s recently revised policy now follows open government principles and boldly declares in its introductory paragraph “how we operate, how decisions are made and the procedures which are followed to ensure that these are efficient, transparent and accountable to local people”.
As a result it is becoming increasingly difficult for many to avoid the conclusion that since this is the first major challenge to the “authority” of this newly created Parking Service (now there’s a misnomer if ever I saw one), the officers feel this proposal has to be pushed through at all costs. The Parking Service, which was set up to maximize revenue from parking related activities and fines, has been so set up simply because it is such big business (£15m in the last two years) that it has justified spawning this whole new department. It thus seems that they feel they need to obdurately push this particular CPZ simply to justify their very creation and continued existence. I believe that the potential failure to implement this “Test Case” CPZ is being seen by the Parking Service as opening up the flood gates for other residents groups to successfully oppose the introduction of CPZs, as indeed they most certainly should do if their proposal is as inappropriate as this particular proposal.
What other explanation is there for the fact that such a local issue is not even being discussed at the Community Council, when the Community Councils were set up explicitly to deal with such local issues? Instead the decision is to be taken in camera, on the recommendation of an officer who has a vested interested in pushing it through, by an executive member responsible for maximizing revenue from car related activities. Even our local councilors do not get to vote upon the issue although they will be “consulted” i.e. the officers are merely paying lip service to the concept of open government.
Setting aside for the moment the issue of proper procedure, let us not lose sight of the real problem - How do you solve the parking space shortage for those that are suffering? May I suggest that firstly we need to recognize what is actually causing the problem and then try to tackle it directly.
The principle problem for these roads is not an intrinsic shortage of spaces for residents but an overflow of parking by teachers from the Charter School, and day parking by commuters using North Dulwich station. To state the blindingly obvious you either have to reduce the demand for parking spaces or provide more. Simply putting in measures which moves the problem from one place to another place is no substitute for tackling the problem head on. Interestingly many of the residents who suffer from these problem actually recognize that this proposed CPZ is not the way to go for the simple reason that once again there will be a significant reduction in the total number of spaces available as a direct result of the CPZ. Hence the CPZ will actually make the problem worse. So they have voted against it.
Clearly tackling the problem directly is not the sort of thinking that is coming out of the Parking Service. As I observed in a previous post they have reputedly raised about £15m in the last couple of years and not a single penny has been spent providing new parking spaces during that time in local areas where they are needed e.g. near shops and at stations, and in our case for a local school, hence my observation about their name being a complete misnomer. In fact quite the opposite, they have reduced available parking spaces by an estimated 20% in this area during the last two years by the prolific amount of new yellow lining .
So I think what we need to do is to have some collective brain storming on how to tackle the problem head on to see if we can come up with some ways, or a combination of ways, to effectively tackle the problem. Accordingly by copy of this post I am asking Owen if he can add a section to the web site to allow us to collectively do just that. To start the ball rolling here are a couple of ideas
Institute car sharing among teachers at Charter School by giving preferential allocation of existing school based car parking spaces to car sharers
Charter School double their parking space by turning existing parking into a two storey car park
Before anyone jumps down my throat to suggest the latter is impractical for whatever reason (it may well be - I have not even been to look at the current parking arrangements which could be scattered all over the place for all I know) the point to remember about brain storming is not to hold back simply because you feel an idea is impractical. The chances are that it will spark somebody else into providing a better alternative, or an improvement of your basic idea.
Kind regards
Mike Colvin
___________________________________________________________________________
Dear Mr Colvin,
I have now spoken to my colleagues about your request and would confirm
that we consider that it would be premature to allow one individual to
see a copy of the Mott MacDonald report until we have set it alongside
other representations which we have received and presented the
conclusions to elected members of the Council.
In passing, I could not agree with your analogy. We have received
questionnaire responses and other representations from many members of
the public. Under these circumstances it would be unfair to discuss the
results with any individual members of the public or groups before we
have reported the outcome to your elected representatives, and have had
the opportunity to put the report generally into the public domain.
Your sincerely,
Tim Walker.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Colvin [mailto:mike@mascot.co.uk]
Sent: 31 August 2005 17:05
To: Walker, Tim
Cc: 'Toby Eckersley'; Pearce, Michelle; 'David Bradbury'; 'P. Amati'; Pidgeon, Caroline
Subject: RE: North Dulwich CPZ
Tim
Thank you for that information.
I find your reason for declining to let us have a copy of the Mott MacDonald report because it is still a “draft”, perverse in the extreme.
As an experienced auditor, concerned to get at the truth, it was a professional requirement to show the draft report to the managers we were reviewing BEFORE it was submitted to the commissioning client. The benefit of this approach is that it is the surest way to eliminate inaccuracies, or misunderstandings, and to promote constructive comment.
May I suggest that you follow this time honoured practice. Otherwise, given that some information has already been put out by officers, which our research has shown to be misinformed in key areas, it will be difficult for many to avoid the inevitable conclusion that the only reason you alone are reviewing the draft is so that you can massage it to fit your preconceptions.
As you have already confirmed this is destined to be a public document, paid for out of public funds, so it is in the public interest that the whole process is self evidently transparent. In this context, may I remind you that the council agreed a new constitution for 2004/5 of which the opening paragraph states
“Southwark's Council Assembly has agreed a new constitution for 2004/05 which sets out how we operate, how decisions are made and the procedures which are followed to ensure that these are efficient, transparent and accountable to local people.”
For your information our draft key findings so far, following our extensive and continuing survey, are that
· There is not a single street within this North Dulwich CPZ proposal where there is a majority in favour of a CPZ
· Red Post Hill and Half Moon Lane, which officers had previously alleged were in favour, are both strongly opposed to the CPZ
· Across all streets surveyed only 14% are in favour
· Less than two thirds of households surveyed could confirm that they received a form from Southwark
· Just over a third returned those forms
· For comparison our survey response rate at 54% is about 50% better.
Regards
Mike Colvin
-----Original Message-----
From: Walker, Tim [mailto:Tim.Walker@southwark.gov.uk]
Sent: 31 August 2005 12:34
To: mike@mascot.co.uk
Cc: Toby Eckersley; Pearce, Michelle; David Bradbury; P. Amati
Subject: RE: North Dulwich CPZ
Dear Mr Colvin,
As I mentioned the report is still in draft format and has not yet been submitted to Cllr Thomas or Village Ward members. It is not yet a public document and so I cannot fulfil your request at the moment.
As the questionnaire requested the senders address information Motts have been able to identify properties where duplicates have been submitted. Results have been analysed on an address by address basis, this immediately highlights any duplications.
I would be grateful if you could a copy of your own report to:
Tim Walker
Project Manager
Controlled Parking Team
Environment and Leisure
151-153 Walworth Road
London
SE17 1RY
Kind regards,
Tim Walker
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Colvin [mailto:mike@mascot.co.uk]
Sent: 30 August 2005 15:59
To: Walker, Tim
Cc: Toby Eckersley; Pearce, Michelle; David Bradbury; P. Amati
Subject: RE: North Dulwich CPZ
Tim
Thank you for that information.
May we as residents have a copy of this report to review, if only to convince ourselves that it is worth the paper that it is written on ? J
I say this because our extensive research indicates that
· Only three quarters of dwellings received one of the forms that the Mott MacDonald report is based upon
· Less than half returned those forms
· It is alleged that some residents both filled in a form and completed one at the exhibition thus leading to an element of double counting. What checks and balances to Mott MacDonald have in their assessment to eliminate such duplications?
Our own extensive research is showing that residents are overwhelmingly opposed to the CPZ even in areas such as Red Post Hill and Half Moon Lane where officers have alleged there is strong support.
When we have completed our own report to whom should we send copies?
Regards
Mike Colvin
-----Original Message-----
From: Walker, Tim [mailto:Tim.Walker@southwark.gov.uk]
Sent: 30 August 2005 14:58
To: mike@mascot.co.uk
Cc: Walker, Tim; Peters, Neil R
Subject: RE: North Dulwich CPZ
Dear Mr Colvin,
A draft report has been received from consultants Mott MacDonald and this is currently being digested. The report and the next steps are being evaluated by Officers and will result in a report being sent to the Executive Member for Environment and Transport for consideration by Cllr Thomas upon his return from leave. There is likely to be further discussion with Ward Members before a final decision is made.
Kind regards,
Tim Walker
-----Original Message-----
From: Peters, Neil R [mailto:Neil.Peters@mottmac.com]
Sent: 24 August 2005 16:30
To: Walker, Tim; Walker, Tim
Cc: Hasan, Shakil; Cole, Alan G
Subject: FW: North Dulwich CPZ
Tim,
I hope that you are well.
Please see email below from Mr Colvin regarding the current status of the proposals.
Regards
Neil
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Colvin [mailto:mike@mascot.co.uk]
Sent: 24 August 2005 16:22
To: LBS-hernehill_review
Subject: North Dulwich CPZ
Hi
Please advise on
1. the status of this proposal
2. has a decision been made and if so by whom?
3. what is that decision?
4. if not when will it be taken?
5. please provide, by email, a copy of the report you prepared on this proposal
Regards
Mike Colvin
Aug 1 2005
Parking to get worse..(Councillor Pearce Responds)
Dear Benny,
Thank you for sending me a copy of the letter you have circulated amongst some of your Elmwood Road neighbours with regard to the controlled parking proposals. I hope you will also circulate this reply. At the moment I think it is premature, if not fairly useless, for people to write to me in the way you suggest. I hope I can explain why.
Firstly, however, I must correct any misapprehensions. As councillors we know that Elmwood Road has not been formally consulted in the same way as residents in Red Post Hill, Ardbeg Road, Beckwith Road, Wyneham Road and Half Moon Lane. We know they have not had options put to them as yet. But we did not know this when the leaflets were originally distributed: we learned it afterwards and learned why.
[At the same time, it has been repeatedly stressed that all letters and e-mails sent by Elmwood Road residents before 8th July - when the first period of consultation ended - would be taken into account in the report to be presented to the Executive Member for Transport. The report will therefore identify the nature of the initial responses from Elmwood Road.]
We councillors were told that leaving Elmwood out initially was quite deliberate. The officers and consultants decided to wait until after the views of the first five roads were ascertained. They told us that Elmwood Road will be formally consulted if there is clear support in all or some of the other roads so that a CPZ of some size would be recommended. It is not yet clear what size (if any) the CPZ would be because any of the five roads that do not want it will not have it imposed on them. This undertaking has been put in writing to all who ask. I would, however, hazard a guess that at least 3 roads would have to want a CPZ for it to be of a viable size. I cannot predict whether there is majority support in any of the five roads.
The two stage process promised will allow Elmwood Road residents to know the size of any CPZ recommended and to assess the likely impact of this upon the road. Residents will be able to make a more informed decision than is possible at the moment. But there will still be no compulsion to be included. Again, I remind you, there may be a recommendation against a CPZ if it would not be a viable size. But I also caution people against assuming this exercise will be regularly repeated – this may be the only chance for some while hence to consider this issue.
I presume residents will also be able then to express views on options. I do not know for sure what range of options are open for discussion.but it appears from the leaflet distributed to the five roads that hours of operation, and whether or not to have pay & display machines for short term visits, are both options for discussion and comment. What will not be open to discussion is the financing of the scheme. The charge for a CPZ resident’s permit is standardised across the borough. Only in very circumscribed circumstances will a permit be available to someone such as a nanny or secretary … these are considered commuters unless they require the car to carry out their employment duties. In such a case, it would have to be a business permit which has a different (higher) tariff. Also, the price of visitor’s day permits are regulated. Your ward councillors have no power to influence this: we do not run the council or make these decisions. Furthermore, we are advised that the charge is necessary solely to cover the cost of enforcing the zone: all zones (collectively) are required to be self-financing.
What will also not be open to discussion is yellow-lining of driveways because these have to be yellow-lined to prevent outsiders (or, indeed, insiders) from parking across them. I am aware that those who have more than one car are also thereby precluded from parking across their own driveway and, hence, some spaces currently used by residents are lost. So the effect must be taken into account when residents consider the matter. (Count the driveways and any second cars pertaining!) I should also add that it is a legal requirement (with or without yellow lines or CPZs) not to park within 10 meters of a junction corner. Every driver who has passed the test has had to learn this at one time: it is in the Highway Code. Protesting against this does not cut any ice with traffic managers, I fear.
Finally, I note that you highlight the fact that Charter School is expanding and extra teachers are being taken on. You are right to say there is no space for extra parking on the school site. If teachers choose to commute by car, it is beyond the power of the School to prevent them. Some will undoubtedly park in Elmwood Road (as some already do). This will happen whether or not there is a CPZ operating outside Elmwood Road. But a CPZ will undoubtedly mean that even more will choose to park in Elmwood Road unless it is included within that CPZ. This is a factor that residents should consider as well as any impact arising from displacement of those cars used by railway commuters. Only the CPZ regulations, which have the effect of excluding commuters, can prevent teachers from parking in Elmwood Road. But whether you feel you need to prevent commuter parking is up to you to decide – with all that this entails.
I hope this letter gives you and your neighbours clearly the information you need. There is no real point in lobbying me – my powers are very limited! The important point is cool-headed individual judgments – mostly mathematical - are called for and final comments sent to the consultants when/if there is a second stage.
With kind regards,
Cllr Michelle Pearce
Labour Councillor for Village Ward
Michelle.Pearce@SOUTHWARK.GOV.UK
Thank you for sending me a copy of the letter you have circulated amongst some of your Elmwood Road neighbours with regard to the controlled parking proposals. I hope you will also circulate this reply. At the moment I think it is premature, if not fairly useless, for people to write to me in the way you suggest. I hope I can explain why.
Firstly, however, I must correct any misapprehensions. As councillors we know that Elmwood Road has not been formally consulted in the same way as residents in Red Post Hill, Ardbeg Road, Beckwith Road, Wyneham Road and Half Moon Lane. We know they have not had options put to them as yet. But we did not know this when the leaflets were originally distributed: we learned it afterwards and learned why.
[At the same time, it has been repeatedly stressed that all letters and e-mails sent by Elmwood Road residents before 8th July - when the first period of consultation ended - would be taken into account in the report to be presented to the Executive Member for Transport. The report will therefore identify the nature of the initial responses from Elmwood Road.]
We councillors were told that leaving Elmwood out initially was quite deliberate. The officers and consultants decided to wait until after the views of the first five roads were ascertained. They told us that Elmwood Road will be formally consulted if there is clear support in all or some of the other roads so that a CPZ of some size would be recommended. It is not yet clear what size (if any) the CPZ would be because any of the five roads that do not want it will not have it imposed on them. This undertaking has been put in writing to all who ask. I would, however, hazard a guess that at least 3 roads would have to want a CPZ for it to be of a viable size. I cannot predict whether there is majority support in any of the five roads.
The two stage process promised will allow Elmwood Road residents to know the size of any CPZ recommended and to assess the likely impact of this upon the road. Residents will be able to make a more informed decision than is possible at the moment. But there will still be no compulsion to be included. Again, I remind you, there may be a recommendation against a CPZ if it would not be a viable size. But I also caution people against assuming this exercise will be regularly repeated – this may be the only chance for some while hence to consider this issue.
I presume residents will also be able then to express views on options. I do not know for sure what range of options are open for discussion.but it appears from the leaflet distributed to the five roads that hours of operation, and whether or not to have pay & display machines for short term visits, are both options for discussion and comment. What will not be open to discussion is the financing of the scheme. The charge for a CPZ resident’s permit is standardised across the borough. Only in very circumscribed circumstances will a permit be available to someone such as a nanny or secretary … these are considered commuters unless they require the car to carry out their employment duties. In such a case, it would have to be a business permit which has a different (higher) tariff. Also, the price of visitor’s day permits are regulated. Your ward councillors have no power to influence this: we do not run the council or make these decisions. Furthermore, we are advised that the charge is necessary solely to cover the cost of enforcing the zone: all zones (collectively) are required to be self-financing.
What will also not be open to discussion is yellow-lining of driveways because these have to be yellow-lined to prevent outsiders (or, indeed, insiders) from parking across them. I am aware that those who have more than one car are also thereby precluded from parking across their own driveway and, hence, some spaces currently used by residents are lost. So the effect must be taken into account when residents consider the matter. (Count the driveways and any second cars pertaining!) I should also add that it is a legal requirement (with or without yellow lines or CPZs) not to park within 10 meters of a junction corner. Every driver who has passed the test has had to learn this at one time: it is in the Highway Code. Protesting against this does not cut any ice with traffic managers, I fear.
Finally, I note that you highlight the fact that Charter School is expanding and extra teachers are being taken on. You are right to say there is no space for extra parking on the school site. If teachers choose to commute by car, it is beyond the power of the School to prevent them. Some will undoubtedly park in Elmwood Road (as some already do). This will happen whether or not there is a CPZ operating outside Elmwood Road. But a CPZ will undoubtedly mean that even more will choose to park in Elmwood Road unless it is included within that CPZ. This is a factor that residents should consider as well as any impact arising from displacement of those cars used by railway commuters. Only the CPZ regulations, which have the effect of excluding commuters, can prevent teachers from parking in Elmwood Road. But whether you feel you need to prevent commuter parking is up to you to decide – with all that this entails.
I hope this letter gives you and your neighbours clearly the information you need. There is no real point in lobbying me – my powers are very limited! The important point is cool-headed individual judgments – mostly mathematical - are called for and final comments sent to the consultants when/if there is a second stage.
With kind regards,
Cllr Michelle Pearce
Labour Councillor for Village Ward
Michelle.Pearce@SOUTHWARK.GOV.UK
Jul 26 2005
Parking to get worse as Charter School expands
TO THE NEIGHBOURS
I have been worried, as I am sure you have, about the proposals from the Council for a Control Parking Zone. I have had a long conversation with our Labour Councillor, Michele Pearce, and as far I have understood the situation is as follows.
1.The staff claim to the Councillors (their own employers) that we have been consulted, when in fact Elmwood Road has not been consulted.
2.The staff claim to the Councillors that options have been put to us, when they have not.
Fro my own experience and from talking to many of you, I have come to the following conclusion;
1.Most of us are worried that the fact that Charter School does not have parking facilities means that more and more teachers come and park here, at the Sunray Gardens end of the road. It will get worse as the school expands.
2.We realise that if controls are instituted in neighbouring roads, there will be a spill-over result and we shall find it increasingly difficult to park near our own homes.
3.Most of us need to have space for ourselves and for perhaps people who work with us or visit us during the day.
I believe that we all want something along the following lines;
1.Some means of discouraging commuters from leaving their cars in our road. Most of us would suggest a simple device, such as forbidding parking between 10am and 12 noon (as happens in Wandsworth), which thus prevents commuters from leaving their cars for the day.
2.A way by which we can have a free permit per household and perhaps purchase a second one valid for a year for someone who might work with us (nanny, secretary, carer, etc).
3.A way by which we can purchase a book of vouchers for visitors during the hours when parking might be restricted.
If you agree with the above, can you please let Michele Pearce know? She is at 8693.1962. She needs our support, as the staff of the council are obviously misleading their own Councillors.
Thanks a lot.
Benny Dembitzer
Elmwood Road
director@ethical-events.org
(7274.5406)
I have been worried, as I am sure you have, about the proposals from the Council for a Control Parking Zone. I have had a long conversation with our Labour Councillor, Michele Pearce, and as far I have understood the situation is as follows.
1.The staff claim to the Councillors (their own employers) that we have been consulted, when in fact Elmwood Road has not been consulted.
2.The staff claim to the Councillors that options have been put to us, when they have not.
Fro my own experience and from talking to many of you, I have come to the following conclusion;
1.Most of us are worried that the fact that Charter School does not have parking facilities means that more and more teachers come and park here, at the Sunray Gardens end of the road. It will get worse as the school expands.
2.We realise that if controls are instituted in neighbouring roads, there will be a spill-over result and we shall find it increasingly difficult to park near our own homes.
3.Most of us need to have space for ourselves and for perhaps people who work with us or visit us during the day.
I believe that we all want something along the following lines;
1.Some means of discouraging commuters from leaving their cars in our road. Most of us would suggest a simple device, such as forbidding parking between 10am and 12 noon (as happens in Wandsworth), which thus prevents commuters from leaving their cars for the day.
2.A way by which we can have a free permit per household and perhaps purchase a second one valid for a year for someone who might work with us (nanny, secretary, carer, etc).
3.A way by which we can purchase a book of vouchers for visitors during the hours when parking might be restricted.
If you agree with the above, can you please let Michele Pearce know? She is at 8693.1962. She needs our support, as the staff of the council are obviously misleading their own Councillors.
Thanks a lot.
Benny Dembitzer
Elmwood Road
director@ethical-events.org
(7274.5406)
Jul 22 2005
Ardbeg Road Needs CPZ
1. There is clearly a problem in some roads in the area. Ardbeg Rd is
treated as though it is a communal parking lot for anyone who happens to
find it convenient to park there, as though it has been built for the
benefit of everyone except those who live there. There would be ample
space for Ardbeg Rd residents but we have residents from Red Post Hill,
commuters and the teachers all trying to park there. Some sharing is
possible but this is ridiculous. A CPZ will deal with the last two
categories. If you make a journey during the week, it is often
impossible to find a space when you return. Clearly other roads like
Red Post Hill and Half Moon Lane also experience severe problems.
2. The CPZ is not a "stealth tax". No doubt the council are entitled to
make a charge for providing the service. The charge proposed has to be
seen in proportion: it is the equivalent to a couple of tankfuls of
petrol and is nothing in comparison to the value of local properties.
4. My understanding is that the teachers have been asked to park
elsewhere but refuse. Ardbeg Rd is a public highway, there are no
parking restrictions, teachers (and commuters) are members of the
public, therefore they are fully entitled to park there. This is why
restrictions are needed. Absent restrictions, local residents have no
more right to park in their own road than anyone else.
3. Clearly some roads do not have any problem and do not want a CPZ in
their roads. For my own part, I can see no reason why roads which do
not want to join in should be forced to do so and have repeatedly made
that point to councilors etc.
4. By the same token, I do not see why roads which do not want to be
part of the CPZ should be allowed to vote the scheme down completely so
that roads, which do have a problem, obtain no solution. Those who
oppose the scheme in total should say what alternative they are
proposing to alleviate the situation in those roads which do have a
problem. In a civilised society people who have a problem should be
provided with a solution.
5. There have been some references to the possibility of displacement
parking following the introduction of a more limited CPZ. I would make
two comments:
(a) There may be no displacement. There is little evidence of it around
the Herne Hill scheme that I can see. What is surprising about that
scheme is that the cars seem to have vanished. I believe there is a
simple reason for this: the people causing these problems do not come
from far away but from the general Dulwich area. Once a few obstacles
are placed in their way they simply stop making the journey completely
because in fact their journeys are completely unnecessary and just made
through laziness. Before he changed jobs, a resident of Winterbrook Rd
used to drive every day to Ardbeg Rd, park and then catch the train from
North Dulwich. He could easily have walked.
(b) If residents of other roads are not prepared to put up with
displaced vehicles parking in their roads, they cannot expect people who
currently have these vehicles parking in their roads to put up with the
situation now.
Richard Ritchie
treated as though it is a communal parking lot for anyone who happens to
find it convenient to park there, as though it has been built for the
benefit of everyone except those who live there. There would be ample
space for Ardbeg Rd residents but we have residents from Red Post Hill,
commuters and the teachers all trying to park there. Some sharing is
possible but this is ridiculous. A CPZ will deal with the last two
categories. If you make a journey during the week, it is often
impossible to find a space when you return. Clearly other roads like
Red Post Hill and Half Moon Lane also experience severe problems.
2. The CPZ is not a "stealth tax". No doubt the council are entitled to
make a charge for providing the service. The charge proposed has to be
seen in proportion: it is the equivalent to a couple of tankfuls of
petrol and is nothing in comparison to the value of local properties.
4. My understanding is that the teachers have been asked to park
elsewhere but refuse. Ardbeg Rd is a public highway, there are no
parking restrictions, teachers (and commuters) are members of the
public, therefore they are fully entitled to park there. This is why
restrictions are needed. Absent restrictions, local residents have no
more right to park in their own road than anyone else.
3. Clearly some roads do not have any problem and do not want a CPZ in
their roads. For my own part, I can see no reason why roads which do
not want to join in should be forced to do so and have repeatedly made
that point to councilors etc.
4. By the same token, I do not see why roads which do not want to be
part of the CPZ should be allowed to vote the scheme down completely so
that roads, which do have a problem, obtain no solution. Those who
oppose the scheme in total should say what alternative they are
proposing to alleviate the situation in those roads which do have a
problem. In a civilised society people who have a problem should be
provided with a solution.
5. There have been some references to the possibility of displacement
parking following the introduction of a more limited CPZ. I would make
two comments:
(a) There may be no displacement. There is little evidence of it around
the Herne Hill scheme that I can see. What is surprising about that
scheme is that the cars seem to have vanished. I believe there is a
simple reason for this: the people causing these problems do not come
from far away but from the general Dulwich area. Once a few obstacles
are placed in their way they simply stop making the journey completely
because in fact their journeys are completely unnecessary and just made
through laziness. Before he changed jobs, a resident of Winterbrook Rd
used to drive every day to Ardbeg Rd, park and then catch the train from
North Dulwich. He could easily have walked.
(b) If residents of other roads are not prepared to put up with
displaced vehicles parking in their roads, they cannot expect people who
currently have these vehicles parking in their roads to put up with the
situation now.
Richard Ritchie
