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