Councillor Nick Vineall..accepted that CPZ would not mean "guaranteed" parking for residents

Dear all

I attended the meeting Friday evening with local Councillor Nick Vineall regarding North Dulwich CPZ proposal.

Present were 6 adult local residents all against the CPZ proposal (plus two children - also anti the proposals!). All were from Elmwood Road and Frankfurt Road.

Main points:

1. Councillor Vineall said he was indifferent to whether North Dulwich becomes a CPZ. He said he wanted residents to get what they want.
2. He said the CPZ proposal has been introduced in response to demand by some residents within the area for a CPZ. Also in response to the results of some local surveying. He was not able to give numbers or specifics.
3. He accepted that the demands for a CPZ in this area are very much concentrated on residents that live close to the border with the Herne Hill CPZ. However, he said that he had pushed for the consultation to include a much wider area so that if a CPZ was created in some parts of North Dulwich, residents on the other street could not complain that they also wanted a CPZ and should have been consulted.
4. Councillor accepted that CPZ would not mean "guaranteed" parking for residents. Residents would still have to compete with other road users for parking (e.g. visitors prepared to pay and display during the restricted hours and who could still park freely in the unrestricted hours).
5. Councillor also accepted that a CPZ would mean a net reduction in the total amount of parking available (due to the introduction of yellow lines, loading bays and disabled bays on parts of the streets). However, he said he did not think that the net reduction would be that big and he said that the experience of other CPZ in the neighbouring areas was that residents still found an improvement in parking availability due to the fact that it was harder for visitors to park their cars all time within a CPZ.
6. He accepted the a CPZ would impose a financial burden for car owners and that this might be particularly onerous on old people, young families. However, he said the Councils view was that if people could afford a car then they could afford the associated costs (including resident permits). The Council believes the principle that all car owners be charge the same was right and that their would be no discounts for OAPs etc (although people with disability could apply for a blue badge with entitles them to free parking in dedicated disabled bays).
7. The Councillor was told by those present that we believe that some of the people that are voting in favour of the CPZ in the consultation questionnaire did not actually understand what they were voting for. The consultation document provides little detailed information of the plan and this has meant some residents erroneously believing they will get dedicated parking bays outside their houses for their personal use in return for the £100 per annum permit fee. This of course is incorrect. The Councillor suggested that residents should go down to Herne Hill, e.g. Stradella Road, to see how the CPZ works in practice (most probably it will restrict parking to those with resident permits or a pay and display ticket between 12 midday and 2 pm).
8. One resident pointed out that some parents have to collect children from a nursery within the area. This nursery finishes at
11.45 am which did not give enough time to collect children and get back to the car without the risk of being a minute or two after midday and hence risking a penalty charge notice. It was also pointed out that in road such as Stradella in Herne Hill a significant number of residents have private driveways and hence are even less affected by their CPZ than residents of North Dulwich (where there is almost no private driveways) would be.
9. The Councillor reluctantly accepted that the consultation document maybe lacked relevant details and was biased. He said he was more concerned about the mistakes in the questionnaire. He said that when the questionnaires had come in it should be possible to see if the mistakes on question 6 and 7 had affected the results and if a street was very closely balanced between those in favour and those against then it might require the questionnaire to be re-issued for that specific street.
10. The Councillor stressed that he was neutral and did not want streets that do not want CPZ to have them imposed (although he again reluctantly accepted that maybe the Council officers were more in favour).
11. Residents at the meeting presented their own evidence from their own petitioning that the vast majority of residents on Elmwood Road, Danecroft road and Elfindale road are against the CPZ proposal.
12. The Councillor said that he expected that the end result would be that one or two streets close to the neighbouring Herne Hill CPZ (e.g. Holmdene Road) would vote in favour of a CPZ and would get it and that other streets further away from the current Herne Hill CPZ would vote against it and would not get controlled parking. He said the decision would be based on the consultation replies (although he accepted that petitions could be relevant if the consultation results where disputed).
13. Residents at the meeting urged the Councillor to ensure that the Council does decide on which roads are included within any new CPZ based on what residents actually want, not what the Council officers want.


Please excuse typos in this (I am "in haste"!)

martin

Elmwood Road