Have lived in other London boroughs where there are CPZs and they do not guarantee you a space

I live in Elfindale Road and also strongly oppose the CPZ plans. I
always find a parking space and the road has lots of spaces during the
day. I have lived in other London boroughs where there are CPZs and
they do not guarantee you a space in your own road!

Many thanks
Clare, Elfindale Rd 

Red Post Hill Resident's Committee...strongly object to CPZ

Further to our previous representation we are writing in response to the recent council consultation proposing CPZ in the ‘North Dulwich Triangle’.

We strongly object to the introduction of a CPZ zone on two major grounds as detailed below. The first is in terms of the detriment to both the nature and quality of life for residents and amenity users of our unique greener safer environment, and the second is on procedural grounds to request adequate consultation as once again, the council is in contravention of its own recommended practise and guidelines for consultation.

Ground 1

The proposed CPZ goes against both the wishes of local residents and amenity users of the area and is inconsistent with the current development s plans of the local authority (Green Safer Environments).

Previous representation and petitions have been made to the Council via committees, local councillor surgeries, scrutiny committee, public meetings, community council meetings, in writing, in response to written consultations and meetings demand by local residents and amenity users.

The council records and petitions show how over 90% of local residents and amenity users object to measures that increases traffic volume, speed and reduce safety (2007 - to date). These objections have included inappropriate and unnecessary proposals for yellow lines and CPZ zones.

Residents have previously justified and documented their objection and have been successful in convincing the council to halt their programme implementing measures that are significantly contrary to local needs. In addition, residents have campaigned and secured area improvements such as: safer crossings, traffic calming measures, 20 mph signage and funding from the councils own schemes to improve the local area and amenities.

These current proposals for the CPZ in the ‘North Dulwich Triangle’ are in total contradiction to what is already on the public record and has previously been agreed by both Council Committees and council officers.

The introduction of CPZ would cause:

• Significant reduction in the levels of safety to the large number of school children in the area both local primary (6) and secondary (4), the elderly  and those using the pavement with prams and mobility aids due to the increase of traffic, parking occlusions and traffic speed in the area
• Unnecessary increase cost and inconvenience to local residence and amenity users

Ground 2

Once again the following procedures have not been followed

i)                    Lack of detail in the consultation documentation

ii)                   No opportunity for open public  meeting consultation

iii)                 Inadequate time allowed for consultation

iv)                 Deliberately timed to reduce the response rate

v)                  Local groups have been inadequately consulted

vi)                 Previous strong objections to parking measures have not been presented as part of the consultation

vii)              The proposals are presented in isolation to other community development issues and concerns

Based on the information and grounds above we demand that the council hold a public meeting and allow adequate time for consultation and that the proposal together with the consultation process be referred to the scrutiny committee.

Yours Faithfully,

Marilyn Panayi

Vice Chair

Red Post Hill Resident's Committee

Charter School teachers using nearby roads ...should be taken up with school before taking such a draconian step

I am writing to inform you that I am opposed to the proposed CPZ for the North Dulwich Triangle (or any other location within the borough not already subject to a CPZ) for the following reasons:

1) I do not currently experience any parking problems. I own one car which I can park outside my home throughout the day.  The introduction of a CPZ covering my area is therefore unnecessary.  A CPZ also appear to be unnecessary for Sunray Avenue given that much of the housing on that road has off-street private parking.  In my experience there is never a shortage of space to park on Sunray Avenue.

2) This area does not generally suffer high demand for parking as there are few shops or other amenities (there are only small parades on Herne Hill and Half Moon Lane within the consultation area).  The area is otherwise low density residential where the supply of street parking spaces exceeds demand.

3) It has not been necessary for Lambeth to introduce CPZs close to Herne Hill Station other than for Poets Corner.  In particular the opposite side of Herne Hill to the consultation area is not within a CPZ.  This suggests that such measures are unnecessary.

4) In light of the above a CPZ appears to be a disproportionate response to any issues reported by residents in terms of (1) cost (2) balance between number of residents benefiting from the CPZ (few) and number of residents paying to implement the CPZ (many) and (3) the inevitable delays and difficulties  in issuing permits and enforcement, not to mention mistakes by residents and parking attendants as to where and when to park.  Ironically, this is likely to cause confusion and fines for residents and their visitors, the very people that the CPZ is intended to serve.

5) Are there no other alternatives to increasing the clutter (and parking attendants) on our streets?  It was certainly one of the attractions for me to live in this area that it is not within a CPZ.  In a CPZ the street scene is dominated by yellow lines, parking bays, zone entry and exit signs, parking meters and ticket machines, yellow and white parking signs, and patrolling wardens.  The imposition of parking rules in this way would make the area a much more stressful and unpleasant place to live as well as a more expensive place too.

6) The issue of Charter School teachers using nearby roads should surely be first taken up with the School before taking such a draconian step.  Perhaps they can be persuaded to increase their own parking facilities or to introduce other schemes to reduce their car usage.  Let us not willingly destroy a sense of community and understanding by opting for rules, regulations, fines and penalties the responsibility for which we subcontract to private parking enforcement companies who care only about their profits.

7) As for commuters leaving their cars outside North Dulwich Station, I think if this is a central argument in favour of the CPZ we should be provided with some figures to understand the scale of the problem and whether there are alternatives to a CPZ.  Only when we understand the nature of the problem will we know how best to solve it.

8) In times of economic crisis such as these, we should be reluctant to increase the cost of living.  If there is a funding shortfall for other public services, parking and streets is one of the non-essential areas that could bear a reduction in budget to support core services.

Yours faithfully

Lee Khvat
Crossthwaite Avenue

London SE5

CPZ does not make sense

The proposal would make sense if it were addresssing a parking/circulation issue in the area but it is not: my street, Casino Ave is both qiuiet and always easy to park in with plenty of space even at week-ends. It is quieter than for instance Dovercourt Rd. from where I moved recently, and where many families have two cars, and streets nearby are also heavily parked, and control could be an issue.

The proposal is unfair and obviously a wheeze for raising revenue in return for nothing.

 Dr. Julian Minton  

Casino Ave.

Against in Casino Avenue

The majority of the residents and I who live on Casino Avenue, SE24 are strongly AGAINST any proposal to introduce Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ) 

on this street and on the North Dulwich Triangle.

We have no congestion or parking issues to contend with in this area. Furthermore I believe it is wrong for us to be levied to park outside our houses on top

of the increased road tax we have to pay.  Considering also the current economic restraint we are forced to undergo.

I urge you to please cancel this proposal to impose CPZ in our area.

Alphy Shields

Lived on Frankfurt for 14 years and don't want CPZ

I live in Frankfurt Road.  I am opposed to the proposal for the CPZ. I have lived in this street for 14 years and see no justification for one. I have to say in my experience it is rare whenever anyone complains about lack of car parking space in the street.

I cannot complete a Council consultation form as it has not been posted on the web so it appears that the consultation exercise is flawed in this respect.

My neighbours and I on either side do not own cars although I owned a car for 12 years. My neighbours on both sides have never owned a car!  Has your survey revealed how many cars each car owning family has?  Perhaps it is the two car owning families who are complaining, if any. Also some people persist in buying very large vehicles which do not seem justified in relation to their usage.

My family and I have reduced our car usage from years ago. I occasionally use a car club car and consider I made very efficient use of the car in an area where we have very high public transport accessibility (2 railway stations and buses nearby). Most of my transport needs are met by my family and  I walking, using public transport and cycling.  Some of my visitors occasionally use a car to visit us.

I accept that there is a case for disabled parking which I am very happy to support. Special places could be set aside for electric cars to encourage a switch to more non polluting cars. Designating space for bicycles or motorbikes could also be a better priority.

I think cars clutter the street scene and degrade the appearance of the street in urban design terms. CPZs confer the concept of 'car ownership space' on the road as a 'benefit' at a cost that house owners can acquire.  They are not.  Cars are ugly and cause air pollution.   CPZs just reinforce the notion that the car can rule and can be prioritised over the environment.

The road is a shared space for all users and should not be carved up between house owners who want to run a car - the 'wants' of some car owners for designated car parking space is not a justifiable social 'need'.   Need and want should not be confused.

The Council would be better off spending its efforts on behaviour change methods.  Introducing a car club space in the North Dulwich Triangle would perhaps reduce car ownership in our area for example (it certainly does that for us and we have 3 cars 6 minute walk away).  If we had car club spaces in every street for example the car driving fraternity might get the message that car clubs offer masses of savings, are a more sustainable approach to the use of the car and reduce trip generation, and significantly save car drivers lots of money.  They also save drivers loads of hassle including the need to find a car parking space!

Shopping is regularly delivered in our street by a range of supermarket chains and big stores - that also cuts down on the car. Delivery people have never complained to me about the lack of space.

When I had a car and parked regularly I generally did not find it difficult to park the car close to my house.  I noticed Saturday evenings could be congested late at night but this is not an issue when the kids are in bed and walking around the corner is not a pressure at weekends. 

I suspect that house owners close to Herne Hill itself might be under more pressure for car parking space but that does not justify the whole of the road being subject to a scheme as draconian as this.

I am happy for this response to go up on the dedicated webpage about this issue and join the voices of the majority in rejecting this proposal.

Yours sincerely

Liz Loughran

I do not own a car. But I am strongly opposed to introduction of controls in any part of the consultation area.

Summary of response

1. I do not own a car.  But I am strongly opposed to introduction of controls in any part of the consultation area.   Introduction of controls simply creates a problem in streets where there is currently none.  The supposed problems perceived by residents of some streets are not so pressing as to justify the inevitable harm that controls would cause to neighbouring streets.  Instead the Council should attempt other measures to reduce car dependency throughout the locality.  Those include provision of additional car club spaces.  That would be preferable in policy terms to parking measures aimed at private cars.

Policy framework

2. Local Implementation Plan (2006): the ten overarching transport objectives include – as Lip 2 – “promote more sustainable modes of travel”.  The fact box on p. 2 defines “sustainable transport” as including “modes of transport that minimal [sic] impact on the environment, this includes walking, cycling and public transport and in some circumstances car clubs…” [emphasis added].  The Executive Summary shows “encourage use of… car clubs” in priority to “implement the parking and enforcement plan” (see below).  The Council’s transport hierarchy gives the lowest priority to private cars.  By implication, a higher priority is given to car clubs in satisfying travel demand.  
3. Parking and Enforcement Plan:

• The parking hierarchy prioritises “care share and car club bays” over resident and other parking.  That means measures to provide car club bays should take policy priority over measures that either provide or regulate parking of private vehicles. 
• Section 3.2 (“taking stock”) notes mixed reactions to recent consultations – “some of the reactions may reflect growing resistance by the public to CPZs” whereas “in some areas there remain localised conflicts between residents’ needs and parking by all day commuters…”.  “Analysis of supply and demand within existing CPZs indicates that pressures on available parking space vary significantly suggesting that a one size fits all approach to the CPZ regime may not be appropriate…”   [emphasis added]. 
• The “new strategic principles for parking control” (p. 8) begin with “The purpose of each CPZ and other parking controls should be defined in relation to local circumstances in the context of the council’s wider development and transport plans”.

4. Car clubs: The Council has recently adopted Borough-wide policy in favour of promoting provision of car club spaces.  That is also consistent with TfL policy of spreading availability of car club spaces.

The situation in North Dulwich

5. Frankfurt Road is typical of many of the streets in the area.  Parking congestion is at its greatest in the evenings and weekends when residents are at home.  There is no discernible commuter parking problem. Laying out a CPZ here would exacerbate congestion by reducing the parking capacity of the street for residents.   Some residents already park in neighbouring streets at the busiest times.  Introducing controls in streets like this would increase that pressure.
6. Introducing controls in a neighbouring street would, in the same way, displace resident parking to this street.  It also follows that if there is a commuter parking problem in a neighbouring street, introducing controls would also displace that problem here too.  So it would bring about pressure for a CPZ as “least worst option” to control commuter parking at the expense of creating additional problems for resident parking.  It is precisely because of this problem of “CPZ creep” that residents a large majority of residents opposed CPZ controls in the whole area at the last round of consultation.  The very fact that some residents of a street adjacent to the existing CPZ boundary are complaining of a commuter parking problem shows that we were right to anticipate this effect.  The problem is not the absence of controls but the controls themselves.

What the Council should do

7. The Council needs to get serious about reducing overall car use in the area.  Car club bays are an effective way of doing this.  I have not owned a car for over two years. I have been able to sustain this because I am a  member of a car club (Streetcar) which has a number of vehicles in bays in the immediate and wider area.   I know from dealing with planning applications around the Borough that there is powerful evidence that each new car club bay replaces several private cars.  The effect is particularly pronounced with second cars – a ratio of up to 1:20.  Households who get rid of a second car will be neither parking it nor commuting in it.   So the result of each new car club bay is to reduce overall car use and levels of ownership as habits change.  That reduces parking pressure from both residents and commuters.
8. But locally the scheme is becoming a victim of its own success.  There is now considerable pressure on the cars nearest Frankfurt Road (which are in Half Moon Lane and Kestrel Avenue).  The next nearest cars are more than a 10 minute walk away.  A 10-min walk is the outer limit in TfL policy.   So other local residents will be deterred from giving up their cars unless provision is increased.   So we need to increase provision sharply and see what happens.  If anything I would expect it to become possible to reduce rather than extend the existing CPZ.
9. The policy framework clearly prioritises car club measures over measures relating to private car parking.  Given that introduction of new CPZ controls in even one or two local streets would exacerbate parking problems in other streets, it makes sense to try providing a number of new car club bays first and monitor the effects.  There is no case for extending controls to any local street until this has been tried first.
10. A car club bay can be provided in streets without existing controls. 

Process

11. Under Southwark’s Constitution Part 3H para. 16 decisions on non-strategic parking restrictions are reserved to Community Councils, not to officers.  Given the small area involved, a decision on how to proceed in the light of this consultation cannot be considered strategic.  A binding decision should be taken by members of Dulwich CC. 
12. I would urge members to decline to introduce any new controls in any part of the area.  Instead Community Council should invite officers to return with proposals for an additional number of car club bays in the consultation area, with priority given to those streets where the consultation response reports the greatest pressure on parking.  The results should then be monitored for 6 to 12 months before any new proposals for CPZ controls are considered.
13. I could not find a link on the Southwark website to an electronic version of the consultation response form accompanying the proposals.  That is a matter of some concern.  I have e-mailed this document to parkingreview@southwark.gov.uk with a copy to the Village ward councillors.   I hope my views will be taken into account.

Gordon Nardell

Can't park on Ardbeg Road after school run

A general theme seems to run through most posts to the blog, widespread objection from most residents of most streets, but on the 2-3 steets near the North Dulwich station a more open point of view (with on balance more for than against) I echo the views of the Ardbeg road postings - more often than not i can't park on ardbeg after school run in the mornings, not ideal with the younger preschool kids in tow. I'd happily pay to increase my chances of getting a space on the road (as easily a quarter to a third of spaces are taken up by non residents of the road)

 

Colin

No to CPZ

Myself and my family, do not agree with the proposed CPZ in Dulwich.  We see it as just another way for the Council to extract revenue from the already hard hit motorists, once again!

I also object to the fact that no consultation was ever undertaken and as local residents of Dulwich, we must stop this scheme going through.


Catherine Webberson-Gill

Opposition in Beckwith Road

Just wanted to register our total opposition to the propossed controlled parking in the "North Dulwich Triangle".

Thank you.

Rebecca and Charles Clouaton,  Beckwith Road. SE24 9LH.

CPZ would be very welcome

Dear Sir/Madam,
I write to express my strong support for the proposed Controlled Parking Zone on Frankfurt Road, Herne Hill, SE24. Parking is often problematic on this street, and the improvement that a Controlled Zone brings would be very welcome.
Yours faithfully,
Stephen Kelly
Homeowner,
Frankfurt Road,
SE24

Lack of information

Although we live in the North Dulwich Triangle we have received no consultation leaflet or forms concerning the above proposal and would know nothing about it but for a neighbour alerting us.

However we are both firmly against parking meters in the area unless they only prohibit parking for about 2 hours a day, say between 12 noon and 2pm. Such a scheme should alleviate the main problem in Half Moon Lane which arises when commuters park their cars - often from 7am until 7pm.

Pat & Ron Kidd    Half Moon Lane

Opposed in Danecroft

Dear Southwark Council

I am strongly opposed to the proposed CPZ in my area, the North Dulwich Triangle.

I see no need for this, having never had a problem to park my car in this area. I have not heard locally of any wish for a CPZ or been shown evidence from Southwark Council of a residents mandate for this.

I have heard of previous attempts to impose a CPZ in this area STRONGLY opposed by residents.

That you try to impose this at short notice before Christmas on a group of residents who have previously rejected such calls harks of sneaky politics and will be remembered by residents as the council imposing its will roughshod over residents. Do this at your peril


Stephen James

Danecroft Road

Against in Beckwith

Until today, 10th December, one day before the cut-off date for consultation, we had not received any notification from Southwark council about the proposed CPZ in Beckwith Road - no "individual mail shot" and no kerbside notice that I have noticed in my daily walk along Beckwith Road. If there is a notice there, it is certainly not prominent.

Therefore we residents of 46 Beckwith Road agree wholeheartedly with the anti-CPZ notification which we received last night and to which your belated notification was a response - there has not been any proper consultation - it is indeed "undemocratic". Having very recently had it rejected so resoundly, introducing it again now, with minimum consultation shows that it is clearly motivated by a desire to increase council revenue rather than the welfare of residents. By a process of "creeping CPZ" you intend to get through one street at a time, thus making parking that much worse in the neighbouring streets, until finally you can coerce all streets to sign up in desperation. Parking in this street is not good, but the problem at the moment is caused mainly by builders' skips, which will in due course be removed.

The residents at 46 Beckwith Road vote as follows:

Kevin Shillington: NO to a CPZ in Beckwith Road

Pippa Shillington: NO to a CPZ in Beckwith Road

Helen Jamieson: NO to a CPZ in Beckwith Road.

Against CPZ in Beckwith

I am writing to voice my opposition to the CPZ being imposed on Beckwith Road. Southwark Council have tried repeatedly to force this scheme upon us, but the residents have overwhelmingly voted "Against" each time. As the council are attempting to go ahead with it regardless, It is quite clear they are failing to act on behalf of their residents.

It seems to me that their motive can be nothing more than a money making scam, to cover incompetency in other areas. This is wholly unacceptable and I, for one, will refuse to abide by any restrictions that have not been implemented in a fair and democratic fashion.

Yours Sincerely,

Russell Bentley

In favour in Ardbeg

Frankly I'm in favour of the CPZ as it will stop all the station users and the teachers from Jags school parking their cars in my road, there are even car users in my road who have car parking on their drives in front of their houses ie: their front gardens  and they still park their cars in the road, in 3 years of owning my property I can only count on two hands when I've been able to park outside my own property, this will get rid of a lot of freeloaders and free a lot of spaces, I understand that it will not guarantee myself a parking space with the permit, and I'm sure that it will be harsh for the other roads in the NDT but is there a better way of pushing these cars away from the area will it not also generate more money for the local area ?

Kind Regards

Mark.

Yet to speak to anyone in the area who is in favour

Dear Sirs,

I would like to state my view that the proposed CPZ for Frankfurt Rd is completely unnecessary and that I am strongly against the proposal. We and our visitors have no problem parking very near to our house throughout the day and have not had any problem during the last 4 years that we have lived in Frankfurt Rd.

I can see no evidence for any significant number of so called "Alien commuters" in the area and certainly not in our road, which the CPZ is supposed to reduce. It seems to me to be simply a way to increase revenue to the detriment of the residents and I am yet to speak to anyone in the area who is in favour.

Best regards,

Paul & Lucy Vials.

Frankfurt Rd, SE24.

To say that this proposal is not a revenue raising exercise is disingenuous.

Dear Sirs,

I have filled in the questionnaire form relating to the above and returned it to yourselves. But as I have recently experienced postal delays in land mail sent with first class postage (over one week) I place no reliance on this reaching you by 11th December.

I am therefore emailing my views to this address, supplied in the North Dulwich Parking Review First Stage Consultation leaflet.

I have 1 car, that is parked on the street.

It is always easy for me and my visitors to park (by that I mean, either directly outside my house, or within four car parking spaces of my front door).

The only time that there are difficulties in parking are when neighbours in the street undertake home improvements and cause skips or building materials to take up kerbside parking spaces.

I absolutely DO NOT want the proposed CPZ to be implemented. The area should remain uncontrolled and I utterly refute the reasons given for imposing a CPZ in Frankfurt Road and the surrounding areas. It is scandalous to charge residents to park outside their own house - not to mention their visitors, who in many cases are elderly relatives with mobility problems who cannot travel on public transport. To say that this proposal is not a revenue raising exercise is disingenuous.

My reasons for refuting the scheme are:

Firstly; commuters use residential parking spaces at the beginning of the day. Unless you commute yourself, you will not lose your car parking space because your own car will be occupying it. If you use your car during the day for short local journeys, it is more often than not the case that your space is still vacant when you return because the commuting rush has ceased.

Secondly; if you yourself commute to work by car, then you will be/are returning back home at the same time as the 'alien' commuters are vacating the spaces their cars have been occupying during the day: and therefore the car parking spaces will be/are readily available to you as a resident.

Thirdly; short, irregular daytime journeys into Central London are undertaken by the vast majority of local residents on public transport - due to congestion charges in Central London and the difficulty of parking at destination points in the West End/City. This being the case, they/you do not lose any car parking space that their/your vehicle is occupying in your residential road.

Fourthly: it would be more pertinent to ask how much of the alleged parking problem in the proposed CPZ is caused by families owning two - and in some cases, three - cars per household. I doubt whether Southwark Council or HM government would countenance taxing/imposing a charge on residents with multiple vehicle ownership in the CPZ, therefore why should residents with single car ownership have to pick up a charge for the implementation of a superfluous CPZ?

Please note that all of the above comments are arrived at by my having lived in the area for over 10 years and from being, at various times in that period, both a commuter by car myself and being based at home.

Yours faithfully

Joanna Wood
Frankfurt Road
Freelance Food Journalist/Editor

We have not received a consultation document ...like many others

We are writing to oppose the introduction of a CPZ in the north Dulwich triangle.

I don’t know why we have not received a consultation document (Like many others it would seem!) but we were only advised of the councils plans during a chat with a neighbour yesterday! I have looked at the proposed area on line this morning. I note that the document was supposed to have been sent out week commencing 16^th Nov and replies received by tomorrow - obviously I can’t reply now but this is a definite NO! We did not have a door to door questionnaire either.

We feel the timing of this consultation, the shortness of preparation time, and the obvious bias in the web content, is misleading and unconstitutional. The Council are trying to force through something the residents clearly do not want. Why are the council wasting money on this when we already said no a few years ago!

It has been proved hundreds of times in other areas that the introduction of CPZ’s result in thereduction of the number of parking spaces available. We are a typical example and currently have off street parking for one car and visitors are able to park across the dropped kerb, this would not be the case if parking bays were introduced.

Andrew and Stella Coles
 Red Post Hill

Yet to hear of any resident who is actually in favour

I would like to register my strong opposition to the proposed CPZ in the North Dulwich Triangle area. The CPZ would be both completely unnecessary as there isn’t, as far as I can see, any particular problem with the parking at the moment , and seems to be little more than a needless, unfair and very high tax on residents  that has no justification. I’m yet to hear of any resident who is actually in favour.

Yours sincerely

Jon Creamer

Elfindale Road

Motivated by some undeclared political agenda

Not having received a 'voting slip' with my booklet regarding the proposed plans for a CPZ in the North Dulwich Triangle, I am writing to expresss my clear and unqualified denunciation of this project which seems to be motivated by some undeclared political agenda and not the will of those who live in the area.

I have lived in 25 Frankfurt Road for 21 years and I can categorically say that there has been no recent change in parking availability in my road that would justify the introduction of a CPZ. The last time this proposal was tabled I made a similar observation to my councillors. I strongly resent the idea that I will have to pay an annual fee for a CPZ that neither gives me guaranteed parking (I have NEVER, in fact, at any time of the day been unable to park in MY road) nor for which there is any proven need.

Southwark is behaving with the same kind of bureaucratic disregard for democratic procedures as the EU. Just as the EU ignores legitimate referenda - in Ireland for example - insisting on the imposition of further referenda until the people are bored/beaten into submission, so Southwark is NOT listening to those who live in this area. The Council is elected to serve the constituents of Southwark not its own, murky political ends.

I would like an acknowledgement of this email, please, from whoever reads it at theparkingreview@southwark.gov.uk and an assurance that my views will be added to those received in the completed voting slips.

Chris Chivers
Frankfurt Road
SE24 9NX

I strongly oppose a controlled parking zone on the "North Dulwich Triangle"

My name is Caroline Brown and I live at 5 Wyneham Road, SE24.  I am writing to let you know that my husband and I strongly oppose a controlled parking zone on the "North Dulwich Triangle".  We object to the aesthetics of meters and bays on our road and the presence of wardens patrolling.  We object to having to pay for an annual permit and having to pay for visitors permits.  We always manage to park either outside or nearby our house and a CPZ is completely unnecessary and unwanted.  We strongly oppose the imposition of a CPZ.

Caroline Brown 

CPZ is not required in this area, get rid of the bus lane over Herne and Denmark Hills

I  and many other residents object to this proposal.

Nobody has visited me to discus this ridiculous proposal.

I object to the above proposal as advised to me by Southwark, for the following reasons:-

·       The consultation document appears to be an advice document not a consultation !

·       The proposal is uncosted, if it will not generate revenue for the Boroughs  residents and free of street parking the residents/Southwark cannot afford it.

·       A CPZ is not required in this area, get rid of the bus lane over Herne and Denmark Hills . Parking space would be increased, the additional cost for Red tarmac and associated Aluminium road signs would create a further saving. Could we make the persons dreaming up these ideas be reduced in number be redeployed to identify savings for residents ?

·       Who and how is the result of the Consultation Document to be democratically determined, surely there should be a referendum on the proposal?

·       It appears that this is a devious way of extorting money from those who you should be protecting. Have you collected all rates and rents outstanding over the last 5 years ?

·       The country is on its knees and rather than dreaming up proposals like this, you should be dedicating your activities to enhancing services to residents an looking to reduce the rates wecurrently pay by 20%.

·       I object totally to this proposal and trust thatmy elected representatives will take note of the strong feeling in the Borough against this proposal and ensure it is not enacted !

G. J. Cannon SE24 9NE

Strongly against in Frankfurt Road

I WOULD LIKE TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I AM VERY STRONGLY AGAINST A CPZ IN THE NORTH DULWICH TRIANGLE.    I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM PARKING AT THE MOMENT AND WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOUR OF THE SCHEME UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES i.e. EVEN IF THE SURROUNDING STREETS ADOPTED CONTROLLED PARKING.

EVE GUTTENTAG
FRANKFURT ROAD, SE24 9NX

Southwark council have deliberately tried to avoid resident participation in this consultation

I am writing to register my opposition to the imposition of a CPZ on our street, in the strongest possible terms. My partner and I are the owners of 35 Casino Ave and we have not even received the "consultation" booklet and voting slip, so are being deprived of the opportunity to offically state our opinions on this matter. This is deplorable and i agree with the opinion of some of my neighbours that Southwark council have deliberately tried to avoid resident participation in this consultation given that we have rejected the implementation of a CPZ in the past. The timing of the consultation and the lack of notification is extremely suspicious.

There is no problem whatsoever with parking on our street and it causes us no inconvenience at all. I have spoken to many of my neighbours and they also have no problems with parking. There is absolutely no need for a CPZ.

This is pretty obviously an attempt by Southwark council to raise additional revenue through the administration of the system itself and by charging for vistors permits, not to mention the imposition of fixed penalty notices should someone not display the required permit. This is a cynical and regressive tax of Southwark residents and i intend to resist it strongly. Having spoken to my neighbours, they all feel the same way and i would advise you to drop the scheme as you did the last time it was rejected by residents.

I will happily participate in any of protests being arranged against this CPZ and intend to make my views know to both local and london-wide press.

Thank you for taking to time to read this and please send me a consultation booklet and voting form *immediately* so i can register my "no" vote in a proper, democratic fashion.

yours,

Chris Territt and Helena Burton

Casino Ave
London
SE24 9PQ

Third time you have tried to inveigle us into accepting what we do not want

Please note my opposition to the imposition of a CPZ in North Dulwich.   This is the 3rd time you have tried to inveigle us into accepting what we do not want and it will not wash.   It is unnecessary and unwanted.   It will not make parking easier for us merely much more expensive.   Even the timing of the "consultation" process, just before Christmas, makes the whole thing feel suspicious.   Do you think we will not notice perhaps?

Ruth Colvin

Beckwith Road,

SE24 9LH.

Opposed in Red Post Hill...again.

We are writing regarding the proposed Controlled Parking Zone on Red Post Hill. We are very much opposed to the imposition of CPZ. Red Post Hill has never suffered with a parking problem. Both residents and visitors have managed to park with ease and we see no need for this satisfactory situation to change. The imposition of another level of bureaucracy and yet another financial charge on local residents is unwarranted and unnecessary. Local residents have already made their opinions clear a few years ago when 94% were in favour of the status quo.

Polly and Randal Twisk

Red Post Hill

SE24 9JQ

Councillors...ensure that residents do not have this imposed on us against our wishes.

Dear Councillors

I am writing to you to register my opposition to the introduction of a new controlled parking zone in North Dulwich.  I hope that as my local ward councillors you can help to ensure that residents do not have this imposed on us against our wishes.

My family lives on Danecroft Road.  We own one car and rarely are we not able to park directly in front of our house.  We never have difficulty parking within a reasonable distance of our house.

I do not want to leap to assumptions about the Council's motives.  However the consultation issued by the Council was so loaded in favour of introducing a CPZ, I do wonder whether this is a fairly blatant attempt to introduce a tax on parking by the back door.

A CPZ is simply not necessary in this area; it will impose unnecessary cost and regulation on residents at a time when many people are struggling with their personal finances.  And frankly, the infrastructure that goes with a CPZ is ugly - horrible lines on streets, parking signs and pay and display ticket boxes.   We have a lovely, well kept neighbourhood - please help us keep it that way.

I would be grateful if you could let me know if you will be taking action to oppose the introduction of this CPZ on behalf of North Dulwich residents.

Many thanks

Mary Burguieres
Danecroft Road

No CPZ in Sunray Avenue...another secret council tax

Dear Robin Nick and Toby.

I would like to express my concern and objection to the councils proposal to introduce a CPZ or restricted parking in North Dulwich. As a resident part of the charm and practibility of North Dulwich is that you can park here without worrying about having enough money or having your car towed, clamped or worse. There is a community here that in the main respects everyone else. Many people park and use the local transport, access the hospital, local businesses,schools, parks and shops.

As a resident I have never found that I cannot park in our street or in the area, however when I venture outside it is a nighmare. A nightmare that is very expensive.

As I see it, there is no gain for me as a resident to have a CPZ there is only the price of yet another secret council tax to pay and the likely hood that the value of my house will drop further.

Please do not let North Dulwich suffer the fate of all the other areas around South London.

Regards

Simon & Nina Richardson

Sunray Avenue

North Dulwich

SE24 9PY.

I live on Half Moon Lane and am desperately keen for a CPZ

I think the main problem with the CPZ consultation is that it covers too wide an area.  I live on Half Moon Lane and am desperately keen for a CPZ.  Both Half Moon Lane and Ardbeg Road suffer greatly from commuter parking for the station and there are rarely any spaces at all between approximately 8.00 am and 6.30 pm on any weekday.  In addition, the Church Hall at the end of the road creates more problems on Saturday mornings. We seem to bear the brunt of the problem for the rest of the North Dulwich triangle.

Previous consultations have shown that residents of these two streets favour a CPZ but the overall opinion for the area has been against one as most other streets in the consultation area are presently unaffected.

It might also be wise to take note of the question on the survey about displaced parking.  If, as I hope, a small CPZ is introduced for the two streets most heavily affected, it is quite probable that station commuters will park further afield and move the problem elsewhere in the North Dulwich triangle.

I haven't been able to find any comments from residents of either Half Moon Lane or Ardbeg Road on your website and therefore hope that you will post this to provide some balance.

Chris Shaw

Half Moon Lane

A fallacy to think that a CPZ would make it possible to find a parking space

Southwark conducted a consultation on a CPZ proposal for a smaller area in 2005 which the Red Post Hill Residents Committee opposed and I strongly believe we should do so again. In 2005 the high levels of opposition which were expressed caused Southwark to drop the proposal.

The current consultation appears to be driven by a central planning policy to cover most or all of the borough (and adjoining ones, so one must presume a Mayor’s Office hand at work) and not by a response to locally expressed concerns. This colours the form of the questionnaire, which encourages you to say that if neighbouring areas were covered by a CPZ, you would you would change your mind about wanting the area to remain uncontrolled. This approach improves the prospects of Southwark being able to proceed with the next stage of the exercise.

Consider, that if a CPZ were introduced:

• You would pay £99.30 pa simply to continue parking as you do at present. You would also need to buy books of day permits for visitors (including tradesmen) at £12 for the first and £30 for subsequent books of 10.
• The charge will go up: in 2005 the charge proposed was £76 pa. This represents inflation of 30.65% in only 4 years.
• You are not guaranteed a parking space.
• It is inescapable that there will be less on-street parking than at present.
• Even the ingenuity of Mott MacDonald, traffic engineers, could not produce a scheme in 2005 which came anywhere near accommodating the levels of on-street parking we have in this road at present. On the east side of Red Post Hill between the traffic lights and the north entrance to Charter School all on-street parking was abolished except for one disabled space and one other space which would have to be shared with visitors. On the west side of Red Post Hill the number of spaces did not even match the number of houses, quite apart from the fact that many are divided into flats. The current car count is higher than could be accommodated by regulation sized bays.
• Wherever there are not bays, there will be yellow lines. This includes any dropped kerb you may have, so you or your guests will not be able to park across that kerb as you might currently do with a single white bar.
• Our own experience of visiting friends in CPZ areas is that quite the opposite of the claimed advantage (greater ease of finding parking spaces) is the case. The other bullet points on the centre page of Southwark’s leaflet are largely inapplicable to our area, and demonstrate the lack of relevance to our own locality, and perhaps the paste and copy approach to this proposal.
• The severe reduction or abolition of on-street parking on the east side of Red Post Hill will produce a wider road for moving traffic and therefore encourage higher speeds; exactly the opposite of what we have been trying to achieve in recent years.
• Even a rough calculation of the households indicates a handsome income for Southwark from this scheme. If, as the leaflet suggests, this income has to be invested back into transport related improvements, I suspect that “parking enforcement” will eat up the lion’s share, which is a completely circular exercise. The attraction to Southwark of being able to use the balance of the income for highways is obvious, since it will supplement cash-strapped funding. Why do they therefore say that this is not a “money making scheme”? It clearly produces supplementary income.

There may be other householders who hold a different view because of their own situation or experience. But I think it is a fallacy to think that a CPZ would make it possible to find a parking space where you find it difficult at the moment, because the loss of kerbside parking space is likely to equal or exceed the gains from deterring outsiders from parking in the area.

Duncan Pratt

26 Red Post Hill

London SE24 9JQ

Against CPZ in Casino Avenue

We would like to object to the implementation of a CPZ in our streets.
We feel the CPZ is not needed and we objected strongly to it the last time and the time before.
We did not get the consultation document and neither did many people in the proposed zone
We feel the timing of this consultation, the shortness of preparation time, the mistakes in the document and the obvious bias in the document, is misleading and unconstitutional. The Council are trying to force through something the residents clearly do not want
yours
Michael Mannion and Clare Baker
13 Casino Avenue

No to CPZ

Myself and my family, do not agree with the proposed CPZ in Dulwich.  We see it as just another way for the Council to extract revenue from the already hard hit motorists, once again!

I also object to the fact that no consultation was ever undertaken and as local residents of Dulwich, we must stop this scheme going through.


Catherine Webberson-Gill

CPZ will signal that Southwark has no concern for the safety of women

Imposition of controlled parking with yellow lines reducing available parking in this area will send a signal that Southwark has no concern for the safety of women in Southwark

Please may I once again express my strong opposition to controlled parking in the North Dulwich Triangle.

Here on Beckwith Road our main parking issue is during the night, NOT during the day. From 7 or 8pm onwards, it becomes increasingly difficult to park anywhere in this or nearby roads.

If controlled parking was imposed, yellow lines would decrease the number of places to park at night, making our lives not just difficult, but impossible.  As a woman, I am deeply concerned that I might be unable to park anywhere near my home when returning from a late event, forcing me to walk through dark streets alone.

We are aware that controlled parking has been implemented in the areas surrounding us, and perhaps late night parking is less of a problem in these areas.  While Beckwith Road does suffer from commuter parking during the day, it is merely an annoyance.

A reduction in available parking at night is a threat to our health and safety..

Jo-an Jenkins Evans

Beckwith Road

In favour as long as it's only 2 hours a day

We’re in FAVOUR as long as it’s just a couple of hours each day to knock out commuter parking.

Just the stage we’re at I guess, but when arriving home with three kids and general clutter we want to park near our home.

On our road I’d guess c.25% of the spaces are used each day by non-residents.

 Anna & Andy, Ardbeg Road

CPZ Long Overdue in Sunray Avenue

As a resident of Sunray Avenue for a little over 10 years I have seen street parking progressively get worse and worse. A CPZ is long overdue. Monday to Friday between around 7am and 8pm the Denmark Hill end of the street us full of what appears to be hospital traffic (mostly workers, but some visitors) often inconsiderately parked. It got worse when the Denmark Hill CPZ was introduced and again when Lambeth recently put in a CPZ by Ruskin Park. The price of parking is small compared to the benefit that will accrue from the CPZ.

Stephen lamb

Strongly against CPZ in Red Post Hill

I am strongly against the introduction of a Parking Zone in the area.  I live opposite the Charter School and whilst sometimes it may be difficult to find a parking spot there are plenty of available spaces in roads nearby and I have legs and am capable of walking.  Its very rare that I do not find space so the argument that it will guarantee parking for local residents falls very flat.  We are all adults here. Why do we need to bring in a tax just so we can park.

At a time when most local councils are striving to reduce street clutter I find the proposal to add yet more confusing signage, road markings and the addition of traffic wardens in the area unpalatable.  If the traffic wardens served a civic purpose I might find that agreeable but I rather think that even if they saw a crime been commited or some suspicious activity they would rather turn a blind eye than report it to the police.  They serve no function other than to cause unrest and another blot on the landscape.

Finally in a time of belt tightening and high fuel prices yet another tax to bring in that will not bring any benefits to the local area.

dominic ono louth

red post hill

se24

Support for a CPZ

I quite understand why residents in the core of the North Dulwich triangle oppose a CPZ. However, those of us who live close to the Charter School and North Dulwich station are under very considerable daily pressure and can rarely find a parking space near our homes. Why assume that a CPZ need necessarily cover the whole consultation area? I would encourage the Traffic Engineers to be innovative when considering possible solutions and consider a small scheme or extension of an existing zone to cover areas which clearly have problems and ask residents to consider any such well designed scheme their support.

Duncan Macrae

In favour of CPZ

I wanted to add an alternative point of view. Please can you post in the interest of balance as there seems to be a strong bias in responses towards certain streets...

I have sympathy with the people in the Elmwood to Frankfurt roads and am sure that at the moment they don't have problems parking, in fact I often have to park in Elmwood because that's the closest I can get to my own house on red Post Hill by North Dulwich station!

The main problem is for those of us that live near the station and the Charter School. Every day I see people coming off the train at North Dulwich and getting into their car which is locally parked. Year 12 and 13 children and teachers also park locally during the day, which combined with commuters make my life miserable.

We have one car and moved into the area from brixton where we had a CPZ. Initially I was pleased that there was no parking, but having been here nearly a year am now sick of it and would gladly pay to stop the problem. In the evenings and weekends there is no problem parking near North Dulwich station, and it is often better during the day in the school holidays so I find it hard to believe a CPZ would make parking worse.

It has got to the point where I can't use the car during the day as I am afraid of not being able to find a parking space when I come home, with small children this is a real inconvenience.  Tradespeople that come to the house regularly complain about not being able to park and I often have to move our car to one of the neighbouring roads so they can park closer to our house to load and un-load.  It creates a huge amount of stress and hassle that I feel is greater than having to pay and que for parking permits (we used to have to do this in Brixton also so I understand it's not the best experience!).

Unfortunately if they just put a CPZ in the roads by the station, those who at the moment object might start to experience the same problems those of us who live near the station have. I agree with the unfairness of the increasing cost of visitors permits, but at the moment am so desperate I would rather pay than continue to be unable to park.

Nicola

Casino Avenue, Red Post Hill and Sunray Avenue...most against CPZ

Some of the Casino Ave residents have organised a petition against the CPZ we have quite a number of signatures.  There is a copy to sign at HH Pharmacy and Peterman's.  We have been going door to door in Casino Ave, Red Post Hill and Sunray Ave. We found most people that answered their door  were against the CPZ. None had filled in their survey forms. 

We still have 1/2 of the street  to do.

Michael Mannion

Elfindale Road (top end)... totally opposed to a CPZ

As residents of Elfindale Road (top end) we are totally opposed to a CPZ for North Dulwich:

When we arrived in Elfindale over 20 years ago quite a number of residents did not even have cars. Over time the number of cars has inevitably increased but it is noticeable that there are always spaces available on weekday mornings in Elfindale. This clearly shows that the street is NOT used by commuters. A CPZ would not help at the times when finding a space is less easy late at night and at weekend evenings; it would just add to everyone’s costs and complicate daily life, particularly obtaining vouchers for visitors and tradesmen. It would also mean yet more obtrusive street furniture.

It is disingenuous of the council to say that all revenue generated from CPZs is ploughed back into transport-related improvements. The revenue effectively releases funds from the transport-related budget for use elsewhere so it is merely another tax which will provide NO benefit for those on whom it is levied. We will have to pay it as there is no possibility of arranging off-street parking.                   

Christopher and Lucie Sims

Elmwood Road votes 50-0 against a CPZ

Terry Brownbill has 50 names of residents in Elmwood Road who don't want a CPZ. He found none in favour.

Opposed in Elfindale Road

We are most strongly opposed to your proposal to introduce a controlled parking zone within our area.  It would be totally unneccessary, a huge inconvenience and is yet another form of taxation that we just cannot afford.  The council tax is high enough as it is, let alone the utility bills that keep going up and up.

It would seek to tax us and our visitors for trying to park outside our own homes, not to mention the distress of trying to obtain permits, day passes and the inevitable fines by overzealous attendants when you have run out.

Our streets are NOT BUSY.  There is never a problem finding a parking space.  There are no shops or facilities nearby that cause us any parking problems.  We do not have overcrowding.

Can you tell me why a CPZ is even being considered?  We have not seen one shred of evidence that a CPZ is needed in our area nor seen any consultation with residents about this matter.

Yours faithfully

Sonia and Colin Butler
Elfindale Road
Herne Hill
SE24 9NN