An analysis of two surveys relating to the proposed North Dulwich CPZ by Mike Colvin

Introduction
As part of its third review of parking in North Dulwich, and the possible need for a CPZ, Southwark Council recently commissioned 2 surveys of:

1. Residents wishes in the 13 affected roads, which it carried out itself; and
2. Parking spaces and their usage in the 13 affected roads, which it retained consultants “Count on Us” to carry out.

It included the second survey at the back of its information pack but it appears to have been completely ignored by Southwark officers when writing their report: it is not referred to nor is the information provided therein used to inform its conclusions.
This is more that merely “unfortunate”  since if you read that report, and make use of the evidence so provided, you are inevitably drawn to conclusions which are almost diametrically opposed to those that have been drawn by Southwark Officers. It is thus difficult to avoid the conclusion that it has possibly been deliberately ignored for that reason.
This report draws upon both of the above mentioned survey reports for evidence and endeavours to produce a more complete report, and consequently more balanced findings and recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
To the members of Dulwich Community Council, plus the strategic directors of environment and of housing:-

1. It is recommended that the existing Herne Hill CPZ is not extended to include Holmdene Avenue since there is minimal evidence of commuter parking (3%) which the existing HH CPZ is designed to solve. Moreover, the likely impact would be to displace such commuter parking to adjacent Elmwood Road which already has a much higher level (11%) of commuter parking than Holmdene has.

2. There is superficially a more arguable case to introduce controls into Ardbeg, Red Post Hill, and Half Moon Lane because it is clear from the evidence that they do indeed suffer from some commuter parking (8%, 10%, 3%) which a suitably designed CPZ could possibly relieve, and a majority of residents who actually voted have voted in favour of it in these three roads.

3. However a closer analysis reveals that despite this higher level of commuter parking, a minimum of 40% of unrestricted parking spaces are unused in the worst affected road (Red Post Hill) and so residents should have no difficulty finding a parking space somewhere in their road.

4. The voting in every road was less than 50% of its residents so such a vote can hardly be argued to have legitimacy when the introduction of a CPZ has financial implications for other residents in the road. More simply put, it is not equitable that a small number of residents who voted for the CPZ should impose their wish, and the corresponding financial burden, on the very much larger number of residents who voted against, it or did not vote at all, for whatever reason. The overall figure for these three roads is that each voting resident would be imposing a potential financial burden on 4 other residents.

5. For all these reasons it is recommended that a CPZ is not required in  any of the roads within the current consultation area.

6. It is recommended that you compliment the officers for commissioning “Count on Us” to provide some objective evidence on the need for a CPZ, but also reprimand them for then completely ignoring it, and in particular for consequently making recommendations which are the complete opposite of those which are informed by the evidence so provided.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. This survey follows on from two previous surveys in 2002 & 2005 each of which massively rejected the idea of a CPZ in the north Dulwich area.

2. This further survey has come about as a result of a small group, we understand of predominantly Holmdene, residents persistent lobbying for a further re-assessment.

3. That Southwark report draws upon, but does not objectively represent, the detailed analysis even of its own consultation report (see background documents), and as has already been noted, it appears to have completely ignored the work carried out by consultants in assessing the number of parking bays and their usage.

4. The Parking Enforcement Plan (PEP) sets out the council’s policy in the management of parking on it’s public highway. The PEP acknowledges that few things polarise public opinion more than parking, and accordingly officers should appreciate the absolute imperative of objectively assessing the results of the survey and placing them in an appropriate context. Regrettably, IMHO, it has failed to do so.

5. In accordance with Part 3H of the council’s constitution, Dulwich Community Council approved the methods and boundary for the study on September 22 2009. Regrettably  the Southwark report has subsequently ignored that boundary and has included results from a street (Nairne Grove), which is clearly shown in the map produced at that time, to be outside the agreed boundary.

6. Moreover it has openly accepted, and decisively acted upon, petitions from undisclosed people outside the area without including such evidence as part of the report so that it can be evaluated, and where appropriate, challenged. It has clearly given these unidentified interests such undue weight that the democratic wishes of the residents of Red Post Hill, Ardbeg and Half Moon Lane, who each voted in favour of a CPZ, have been overturned.

7. During November and December 2009, the run up to Christmas when residents were least likely to respond to a survey, residents and businesses were consulted on parking in North Dulwich, primarily if they supported the introduction of a CPZ.

8. Several residents have since complained publicly about this unsuitable timing and how they were disenfranchised as a result.

KEY ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

1.  A total of 362 questionnaires were returned representing a 27% response rate. This is a better than average response rate for this type of consultation when compared with similar consultations in the borough and benchmarked against other London authorities.

2. That 27% splits as 8% in favour, 18% opposed, and 1% who failed to answer the key question of whether or not they wanted a CPZ in their road. In other words, there were 225% more votes against the CPZ proposal than there were in favour of it.

3. The council allegedly gives significant weighting to the consultation return when the response rate exceeds a threshold of 20%, except when it suits its purpose not to.

4. The table below details responses to the question “do you support the introduction of a CPZ in your street?” Note that unlike the misleading bar chart in the Southwark report, which shows the results only in terms of percentages of those who actually voted, this table shows those same votes expressed more appropriately in terms of percentages of households in the relevant street. The latter being obtained either by counting or from the postcode directory for this area.

Road	Houses	H'holds	number	% Road	Said	Said	% road	% road	Skipped	Forms	Number	Number	% not
	in road		returns	made a	YES	NO	= YES	=NO	question	% Not	forms NOT	Not YES	YES
		1.25		return						returned	returned
Ardbeg	28	35	17	49%	11	6	31%	17%	0	51	18	24	69%
Beckwith	93	116	37	32%	9	25	8%	22%	3	68	79	107	92%
Casino Avenue	130	162	33	20%	5	26	3%	16%	2	80	129	157	97%
Danecroft	79	99	38	38%	2	36	2%	36%	0	62	61	97	98%
Elfindale	96	120	48	40%	3	38	3%	32%	7	60	72	117	98%
Elmwood	80	100	26	26%	0	26	0%	26%	0	74	74	100	100%
Frankfurt	84	105	36	34%	5	29	5%	28%	2	66	69	100	95%
Half Moon Lane	69	86	9	10%	5	4	6%	5%	0	90	77	81	94%
Herne Hill	82	102	10	10%	3	6	3%	6%	1	90	92	99	97%
Holmdene Ave	107	134	48	36%	34	12	25%	9%	2	64	86	100	75%
Nairne Grove	24	30	2	7%	1	1	3%	3%	0	93	28	29	97%
Red Post Hill	106	132	25	19%	14	11	11%	8%	0	81	107	118	89%
Sunray Avenue	90	112	22	20%	8	11	7%	10%	3	80	90	104	93%
Wyneham	21	26	13	50%	2	11	8%	42%	0	50	13	24	92%
outside area			4
TOTAL	1089	1359	368		102	242	8%	18%	20		995	1257

What conclusions that can be drawn from these returns?

1. only 27% of all residents responded to the survey - this is the only one of the points made below that is made in the misleading Southwark report.
2. only 8% of all residents said YES to a CPZ in their road
3. whilst 18% of all residents said NO to a CPZ
4. in other words 237% times as many residents said NO as said YES
5. only 25% of Holmdene residents are in favour of CPZ  whilst 75% are happy with the current arrangements
6. only 8% of all residents in the proposed CPZ area are in favour of having a CPZ whilst 92% are happy with the current arrangements
7. 71% of all roads said NO to a CPZ
8. hence the small minority Holmdene residents who are in favour, amounting to only 2.5% of all residents, are effectively dictating the outcome not just for Holmdene, but for everyone else in the whole consultation area.
9. witness the fact that more residents, 31.4% in Ardbeg as opposed to only 25% in Holmdene, are in favour of a CPZ in their road, yet they have been refused a CPZ on what appear to be very spurious grounds, (details below) whilst Holmdene's minority wish has been granted.
10. Red Post Hill and Half Moon Lane, who also had majorities in favour, have been rejected on the same grounds
11. Given such illogicality, you can't help but wonder whether there is indeed an undeclared ulterior motive, as has long been suspected, for the whole push by Southwark to impose CPZs

And last, but by no means least, even if Holmdene were to get an extension to the existing CPZ zone, it is simply NOT going to solve Holmdene's problems (see below).
Resulting recommendations

1. It is not recommended that the existing Herne Hill CPZ is extended to include Holmdene Avenue since there is minimal evidence of commuter parking (3%), which the existing Herne Hill CPZ is designed to solve. Moreover, if extended, the likely impact would be to displace such commuter parking to adjacent Elmwood Road which already has a much higher level (11%) of commuter parking than Holmdene has.

2. There is a more arguable case to introduce controls into Ardbeg, Red Post Hill, and Half Moon Lane because it is clear from the evidence that they do indeed suffered from commuter parking (8%, 10%, 3%) which a suitably designed CPZ could possibly relieve, and a majority of residents who actually voted have voted in favour of it in these three roads.

3. However the Count on Us parking spaces survey shows that the maximum usage of unrestricted parking spaces (including commuter parking) in Red Post Hill was 84 out of an available 141 spaces, thus leaving a minimum 57 (40%) spaces free. So whilst acknowledging that some commuter parking does indeed take place it does not appear to be at such a level that residents cannot park in their own road although it may not be as close to their house as they would wish, given the length of Red Post Hill.

4. Voting in each of these three roads was less than 50% of residents, 30 (20%) out of 147 in total. Such a vote can hardly be argued to have legitimacy when the introduction of a CPZ has financial implications for other residents in the road. More simply put, it is not equitable that a small number of residents who voted for the CPZ should impose their wish, and the corresponding financial burden, on the very much larger number of residents who voted against it, or did not vote at all for whatever reason.

5. The highest percentage in favour (31% in Ardbeg) would thus be placing a financial burden on twice as many residents who had not voted in favour, whilst in the case of Holmdene it would be three times as many who had not voted in favour. The overall figure for these three roads is that each voting resident would be imposing a potential financial burden on 4 other residents.

6. Consequently it is recommended that a CPZ is not required for any of the roads within the current consultation area.

7. Interestingly, the Southwark report also rejects a CPZ for those three roads, but on what many would see as spurious grounds (details below), when it could more simply have done so on grounds of equity.

What grounds were used by Southwark for the rejection of CPZs in Ardbeg, Red Post Hill and Half Moon Lane?

• “It is not recommended to introduce controls into Red Post Hill due to the significant amount of correspondence received (against the CPZ) by email / letter beyond those charted in the questionnaire returns.
• In view of this and for the technical reasons provided in the consultation report it would be very difficult to provide a reasoned CPZ boundary for the two other supportive roads (Ardbeg Road and Half Moon Lane). Therefore these are not recommended for CPZ implementation.”

I can hardly believe I am reading that. Southwark spends thousands of pounds of rate payers money properly consulting the residents of North Dulwich, carefully agrees with the members of the DCC what the boundaries should be, then officers promptly ignore that agreement by including returns from Nairne Grove which were not in the originally agreed area. OK, this in itself is no big deal since it was only two returns and they cancel each other out, but it does not reflect at all well on the probity of the officers.
But now consider this. Residents have been consulted, then Red Post Hill, which has a majority voting in favour of a CPZ, is told by these same lacking in probity officers, that simply because an  unquantified number of unidentified outsiders, who were not part of the consultation, have raised objections, its expressed wish will not be granted. Moreover “in view of this” the expressed wish of residents in Ardbeg, who incidentally have a much higher proportion of their residents voting for a CPZ than do Holmdene, is also rejected, as is the majority wish of voters in Half Moon Lane. What sort of democracy is that?  
Note that despite being referred to as being elsewhere in the consultation report, the “technical reasons”, which are also referred to as grounds for rejection, are not to be found anywhere in the report. Unsurprisingly, one ends up suspecting that they simply do not exist.

Why, even if they were to get the CPZ extension, it is a CPZ not going to solve Holmdene's problems ?
First we need to understand what Holmdene's problems are, which is a lot easier said than done.
Although Southwark sensibly asked residents how difficult it was to park, sadly there has been no attempt by Southwark to ask Holmdene residents, or any other residents, why they believed it was difficult to park. I will come back later to their anecdotal statements that have appeared on the web, but first let us look at the basic facts which can be enumerated: 

1. How many parking spaces are actually available per house/household in each street? and
2. How often do they run out of unused unrestricted parking spaces?

At the back of the Southwark information pack 
http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/Published/C00000176/M00002978/$$ADocPackPublic.pdf, is a lot of seriously useful findings from the survey by “Count on Us” which was commissioned by Southwark, but which officers appear to have completely ignored when it comes to preparing their conclusions and writing their report. Nowhere in the report are they referred to, they are simply attached at the end as though they were of little consequence. 
However they are a mine of useful, and extremely relevant, information which should inform any assessment of the need for a CPZ. It is more than “unfortunate” that they have not done so as yet. So let me introduce some key findings.
There are numerous tables prepared by the consultants “Count on Us” from which I have abstracted the following.

Road	Houses	H'holds	Unrestricted parking bays	UPBs per h'hold
	in road
		1.28
Ardbeg	28	36	63	1.75
Beckwith	93	119	111	0.93
Casino Avenue	130	166	198	1.19
Danecroft	79	101	123	1.22
Elfindale	96	123	129	1.05
Elmwood	80	102	132	1.29
Frankfurt	84	107	111	1.04
Half Moon Lane	69	88	58	0.66
Herne Hill	82	105	0	0
Holmdene Ave	107	137	158	1.15
Red Post Hill	106	135	141	1.04
Sunray Avenue	90	115	232	2.02
Wyneham	21	27	45	1.67
TOTAL	1065	1361	1501	1.1

As you will see there are in total, according to the consultants' report, more parking spaces (1501) than there are houses or households (1361) with an average of 1.1 spaces per household. So in theory there should not be a problem if there was only one car per household. However the spaces are not evenly distributed, so we find that some roads, particularly roads with buses, like Herne Hill of Half Moon Lane, where parking spaces are restricted because of bus stops or yellow lines, are well below the average, whilst Sunray Avenue (surprisingly despite having a bus route) is well above the average with at theoretical 2 unrestricted parking spaces available per household.
Holmdene is above average with 158 bays which gives 1.15 per household, 1.48 per house.
The next question is “How intensely do they actually get used?” Despite all the vociferous complaints by Holmdene residents over the years about inadequate parking spaces, every time I have walked the length of Holmdene and counted the empty spaces there were always at least 10 available, at which point I gave up. I began to suspect that Holmdene residents were particularly lazy and perhaps not prepared to walk more than 10 yards. But maybe I was simply not counting at the right time, so it is refreshing to see that a systematic effort has finally been made to establish the true scale of the parking problem across the whole area.
“Count on Us” did 4 counts of the number of unrestricted parking spaces which were occupied on all 13 roads, at 4 times on each of two days (Thursday and Saturday), including two at 6 in the morning. The results for Holmdene were 127, 111, 124, 130, 131, 117, 105, 91 compared to the 158 available spaces. From that it is apparent that there were always at least 27 empty car parking spaces available, even overnight. 
So on the face of it, despite all the protests from Holmdene residents, there is no statistical   evidence from this survey to support their claims of lack of parking spaces. In fact quite the contrary, it appears that 17% of available spaces are permanently underused.
Anecdotal evidence
I mentioned earlier the anecdotal evidence of problems. There have been numerous postings on the http://cpzdulwich.net/ web site set up for that purpose. A number of the posts were from residents in favour of a CPZ, including several from Holmdene.
These posts can be summarised as expressing concern about

1. parking by non residents; some non residents parking for days/weeks on end
2. being unable to find a space and thus resorting to parking in nearby Elfindale or Beckwith
3. being unable to find a space whilst neighbouring streets are allegedly empty
4. safety issues for mothers with children from speeding cars
5. safety issue or mothers with children because you cannot park in front of, or near, one's house

Checking these claims to the analysts carried out by “Count on Us”  and reported above, we find

• Issues 1-3 are simply not supported by the survey
• Issue 4, a CPZ in itself is not going to have any impact on speeding cars
• Issue 5, the 5 additional spaces that might conceivably be freed up by discouraging longer term “commuter” parking is not going to have much impact either on the 158 available spaces, or the 27 (minimum) unused spaces, and thus ensure that there is always an unused space near your house. Many other residents have wisely given up on such an aspiration many years ago.

Mike Colvin

Beckwith Road

URGENT: Dulwich Community Council Meeting TONIGHT...PLEASE ATTEND

This is just to let you know that the Herne Hill CPZ report is scheduled for the next DCC meeting on March 25 at the Herne Hill Baptist Church on Half Moon Lane.

The report is set for the second half of the meeting, after the Break at around 8.30pm.

CPZ needed in Holmdene

Yes Holmdene needs CPZ as we Have major problems in parking in the day time and evening  In day time there are serious health and safety issues for mothers taking young children in/out, 

In evening when many residents cannot park and are forced to go elsewhere. Women working late or out of London often have to walk back from their cars parked in other streets late at night alone.  Being the only through road in the triangle without parking restrictions We have seen displacement of cars to Holmdene. During the day and also for longer term  car owners use Holmdene for days/sometimes weeks of free parking; This is going to get worse: Lambeth is introducing CPZ just the other side Herne Hill – already installed by Ruskin Park

CPZ clearly works.   There are half-empty streets of Hollingbourne, Warmington etc at any time of day or night. (eg 18 free spaces in Hollingbourne at 10pm recently) . This shows that parking problem in Holmdene Avenue is not just London organic car growth. Diagonal parking is not the answer  It was considered in 2000 but dropped as too dangerous. Traffic picks up speed on the hill - it would put drivers at risk when reversing out  and would be very dangerous for any cyclist caught. And this would just attract in even more cars from  elsewhere - Holmdene does not want to become the free car park for the district.

Robert and Judy Foster,  Holmdene,

Holmdene... light on facts but heavy on emotion

Sally, David, Harriet, Holmdene anonymous, and everyone

There is a real need to think through the benefits (or otherwise) of a CPZ.

Sadly there appears to be a belief that it is a cure-all for parking problems when that simply is not the case. It seems to have delivered some improvement to the lives of residents in the existing CP zone near Herne Hill station because there's was a very specific problem of commuters parking there all day. Hence a balance was struck within the CPZ between the needs of shop keepers for shoppers to park, for the needs of residents for short term visitors or tradesmen to park without the hassle of having to buy a parking ticket, and the need to discourage commuters, by having the CPZ parking restriction apply only between the hours of noon and 2pm.

However, we seem to easily to forget that the inevitable corollary to such a limited hours restriction is that there is enforcement only between those same hours. Hence there is no enforcement in the evenings, or overnight, thus people can park where they like then, CPZ or no CPZ, with impunity.

Unsurprisingly therefore, that lack of enforcement will do nothing to solve another problem, namely too many overnight car parkers, a problem which is brought about by most streets not being big enough to accommodate even one car per house, let alone the two or three that occur when houses have been split into flats or there are multiple cars per household. This, as best I can understand it, from these postings, which seem to be light on facts but heavy on emotion, is the primary problem in Holmdene

So my suggestions to Sally and other residents in Holmdene are to first take the following actions
1.Do an audit of the real demand from Holmdene residents for parking in Holmdene. Amongst other things this could provide the registration numbers of residents cars and thus enable you to much more accurately determine how much parking is by residents, and how much is by non residents. You may be quite surprised to discover that what you thought was non resident parking was simply someone from further up the street
2.Carry out an audit of the parking at different times of day over a week and establish how many residents are parking, how many non residents are parking, and how many parking spaces are free. On the numerous occasions that I have tramped up and down Holmdene in the last few years counting available spaces, there have never been less than 10 free spaces.
3.Give up on the idea that you should always be able to park outside your own house. Most of us wised up to the fact that such a luxury was rarely going to happen many years ago.

Clearly if the outcome of action 1 is that there is a greater indigenous demand for parking in Holmdene than Holmdene can currently itself satisfy, then the solution is largely in your own hands. You have to either promote a reduction in car ownership and a corresponding take up of car clubs, or park on your own forecourt where that is possible, or create more on street parking spaces. In the latter respect Holmdene is unique in this area in so far as it is such a wide road it, so it could have diagonal, as opposed to parallel parking, and increase the capacity by about 50%. OK, I know one of the officers stood up and said that was not safe, but that claim appears to be without foundation given that such parking already happens on a far busier road through Dulwich Village, and to the best of my knowledge there have never been any accidents there.

No Sally, it is not simply a case of “just because the 'no' vote streets don't want the acknowledged problem moving into theirs”, more a deeper recognition by many people who have thought long and hard about it, that a CPZ will not solve Holmdene's problems, or their own parking problems - and most streets have got a parking problem of some sort. As a result the numbers opposed to the idea of a CPZ are about 3 times those in favour.



 Mike Colvin, Beckwith Road

Yes in Holmdene Avenue

PLEASE PLEASE install cpz in holmdene avenue. Parking is a nightmare due to non residents using the street as a free car park as we are on the edge of the cpz boundary. We really want to have cpz, so many residents are campaigning for it. It's a serious issue for mothers with young children, of which there are many on this road. It's a safety issue at night for people trying to get home, and for everybody who lives here it's causing a real headache not to be able to park in front of or even near your own house. PLEASE listen and install cpz on this road. Thank you.

--
Kate Murrell

Controlled Parking Please in Holmdene

I am a resident of Holmdene Avenue. It is essential to have controlled parking here despite all its drawbacks we are now the first street away from Herne Hill without it and its a nightmare. I have had to park in Elfindale or Beckwith in order to avoid a parking fine in one of the controlled streets because everyone has crowded into Holmdene. A neighbour regularly blocks off the space outside her house so she can come back with her small children totally understandable but that means the rest of us have fewer options. THe only answer if controlled parking please for Holmdene. It would have been better not to have controlled any of the streets but now the others have been It's a nightmare. So I say a very strong yes to controlled parking


Helen Willcox
Holmdene Avenue

We absolutely need a CPZ for Holmdene Avenue

We absolutely need a CPZ for Holmdene Avenue. 

I agree this scheme should be assessed street by street and good luck to those residents who find themselves living next door to a CPZ street.

Holmdene Avenue suffers because the streets towards herne hill are all controlled As a result it is often impossible to park, whilst the neighbouring streets are empty.

Also, we do not need 4 loading bays at the bottom end of Holmdene Avenue. With available parking on the main road, there is no need for so many bays with such few shops.

David & Harriet

Holmdene Avenue

Do not rely on your councillors to support you

I previously lived in Wyneham Road and remember the 2005 consultation. Subsequently I moved to the other side of the hill where a CPZ has recently been introduced in the Herne Hill Road, Ferndene Road area. Based off these experiences I have the following observations and recommendations to make.

1) Mobilise! The council rely on residents inertia, weariness and fatalism to push these things through. Lobby loud and hard. In a large section of our roads - about a third of the now CPZ - a petition against the CPZ proposal attracted over 250 signatures as compared to the 73 people who subsequently voted in favour through the official consultation questionnaire. The Council dismissed the petition on the grounds it was not 'statistically comparable' to the official consultation. Setting aside the serious questions this raises about the demcratic process the important lesson to learn is this: of the 250 people who signed the petition only 72 made the effort to complete the official questionnaire. Inertia, of which I was guilty too, cost this area dearly.

2)Do not rely on your councillors to support you. Central government has a massive budget shortfall and consequently local governmenmt is and will feel the squeeze. You live in nice big expensive houses: no self respecting ambitious councillor will help you avoid the implementation of a lucrative annuity revenue stream. In our instance residents failed to observe that the ward councillor was also head of finance for Lambeth Council.

3) Think about who will get parking fines or have their cars towed away. It will not be the regular drive-train commuters - they will observe the change and simply park their cars elsewhere. Assuming the CPZ will operate between 12 and 2pm, those impacted by penalties will be YOU, directly or indirectly. They will catch i) visiting friends, family or workmen who either don't notice the signs, misunderstand the signs, or who simply loose track of time and overrun the meter or 12pm watershed; ii)residents who forget to renew their permits on time or who park two inches of their back wheels on the swathes of new (and largely purposeless) yellow lines that always accompany the introduction of any CPZ.

4)Where residents are opposed make sure that they respond to the official consultation. In our CPZ the percentage of residents (of the ultimate CPZ area) who voted in favour of the proposal was 16%, and against 8%. 74% did not respond. Based on those numbers the final consultation report concluded that "a strong majority" had voted in favour of the CPZ proposals. The report is in fact riddled with dishonest statements and misuse of statistics, but the lesson is this: we let the council do this to us. We failed to mobilise the vote and we did not properly scrutinise and challenge the consultation report at the right time.


Colin Harrison

So called "consultation"

Please take this email as our opposition to the above proposal. CPZ in our the above areas is unnecessary and will cause more financial strains.  As expected, lots of people like us were too busy prior to the festive season, and only have time to deal with this type of so called "consultation" now to express our opinion.

 

We wish the council, by now, should have been fully aware of the residents' opinion and should never make such a time-wasting proposal again.

 

Thanks

Liu Family Sunray Avenue SE24 9PT

A disgusting money-making operation

I deeply disapprove of the plan to enforce CPZ on Sunray avenue and the streets of North Dulwich. It is a disgusting money-making operation which is of no benefit to residents or people who work in Dulwich at all! There is always plenty of parking on my street. I have no concerns about non-residents parking there freely. I need my car to come and go in the middle of the night as I am a junior doctor. Many others have similar reasons for needing their cars, not lease my house-mates. I live in a house of multiple occupancy where there are currently 5 tenants. How do you propose we all park with this ridiculous plan for Controlled parking! 

In anticipation of your action to halt this CPZ plan I thank you

Daisy Hamilton-Baillie

Sunray avenue