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