Personally we would welcome a 'residents parking only' zone where we live. It is a real nightmare trying to park anywhere near our home. What with the commuter parking (for Sydenham railway station) and customers of LA Fitness parking all hours. We would happily pay £30 per year (x2) if it stops this.
It is noticeable on a Sunday when there are only about 5 cars in our road. Also when they were reconstructing the roundabout and our road was blocked off, it was bliss. No one except residents could access it.
Lewisham should take a leaf out of Bromley's book. Make CPZ between 12-3.00pm which will stop all the commuter parking but still allow some parking for shoppers or visitors to Sydenham town.
This is particularly evident now they have closed the car park at the side of the Greyhound and are now charging. Our road is impossible.
CPZ Consultation
I was fascinated by Nick Long's contribution (see above) supporting CPZs. Thanks Nick but I really would have to question some of your statements you make supporting the benefits of CPZs:
1. "Reductions in noise and traffic movements in your street". Surely CPZs bring even more noise and traffic movements due to vehicles touring the area looking for vacant parking spots.
2."Lower traffic speeds", "reductions in rat running". reclaiming local streets for local residents". I cannot fathom how on earth you can make these claims. Traffic speeds are increased and rat running increases under CPZs due to the fact that "tidier" traffic allows cars to speed through the area. As for "locals reclaiming their streets" - are you joking!
3. The notion that "CPZs are cash cows is an urban myth". The proposed CPZ in Sydenham covers approximately 5,000 households. At £30 per time this brings in at least £150,000 per year - it could be even more since many households own two or more vehicles) Then you have the extra income from pay and display, parking fines, business charges etc. Of course, this will bring in lots of money once the initial set-up charge has been taken into account. By the way, I have no objection in principle to local government making money from parking charges but it would surely be totally wrong to deny that CPZs actually make money.
Before you get the idea that I'm a member of the pro car lobby, I'm very much in favour favour of dissuading car use by congestion charges, road calming, increases in petrol duty etc etc. I'm against CPZs because they actually DO NOT deliver any of the things that Nick Long claims and DO NOTHING to discourage car use.
Anyone seriously interested in protecting our environment should be against such schemes and should instead be demanding of LBL that they take serious steps to protect our communities from the effects of the car instead of schemes which basically "tidy-up" parking.
1. "Reductions in noise and traffic movements in your street". Surely CPZs bring even more noise and traffic movements due to vehicles touring the area looking for vacant parking spots.
2."Lower traffic speeds", "reductions in rat running". reclaiming local streets for local residents". I cannot fathom how on earth you can make these claims. Traffic speeds are increased and rat running increases under CPZs due to the fact that "tidier" traffic allows cars to speed through the area. As for "locals reclaiming their streets" - are you joking!
3. The notion that "CPZs are cash cows is an urban myth". The proposed CPZ in Sydenham covers approximately 5,000 households. At £30 per time this brings in at least £150,000 per year - it could be even more since many households own two or more vehicles) Then you have the extra income from pay and display, parking fines, business charges etc. Of course, this will bring in lots of money once the initial set-up charge has been taken into account. By the way, I have no objection in principle to local government making money from parking charges but it would surely be totally wrong to deny that CPZs actually make money.
Before you get the idea that I'm a member of the pro car lobby, I'm very much in favour favour of dissuading car use by congestion charges, road calming, increases in petrol duty etc etc. I'm against CPZs because they actually DO NOT deliver any of the things that Nick Long claims and DO NOTHING to discourage car use.
Anyone seriously interested in protecting our environment should be against such schemes and should instead be demanding of LBL that they take serious steps to protect our communities from the effects of the car instead of schemes which basically "tidy-up" parking.
I’m very in favour of public consultation, but at the same time how are we supposed to know what the impacts will be of charging for Girton Road Car Park, or implementing a CPZ. I could think of a dozen scenarios in which either option could either be effective or cause chaos, depending exactly how they are implemented.
It is a bit chicken and egg, but perhaps it would have made sense for Lewisham to have a more defined plan before consulting the public, rather than saying they won’t develop a scheme before the idea gets approval from residents. I’m neither pro or anti CPZ’s on principle – sometimes they are the right tool for the job, sometimes they aren’t. As a layperson, how am I supposed to judge, from the scant information provided in the consultation leaflet, whether it will work in Sydenham or not?
Just to venture my layperson’s opinion anyway: it seems that charging for Girton Rd on top of introducing a residents only parking scheme can only be very bad for local business. However, could the revenues from the CPZ not be used to subsidise Girton Road to keep it free (only if efforts to get Somerfield involved in subsidising it fail)?
It is a bit chicken and egg, but perhaps it would have made sense for Lewisham to have a more defined plan before consulting the public, rather than saying they won’t develop a scheme before the idea gets approval from residents. I’m neither pro or anti CPZ’s on principle – sometimes they are the right tool for the job, sometimes they aren’t. As a layperson, how am I supposed to judge, from the scant information provided in the consultation leaflet, whether it will work in Sydenham or not?
Just to venture my layperson’s opinion anyway: it seems that charging for Girton Rd on top of introducing a residents only parking scheme can only be very bad for local business. However, could the revenues from the CPZ not be used to subsidise Girton Road to keep it free (only if efforts to get Somerfield involved in subsidising it fail)?
-
DukeofThorpe
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 18 Apr 2005 07:37
- Location: Sydenham
I've just started my own business and as such I am now driving and parking all over London on a regular basis. It really feels like it's costing me £50.00 every time I jump in my car to go visit a client. There are traffic wardens waiting to pounce on every corner, traffic calming measures that are ineffective and cause more harm than good, new yellow box junction regulations that catch innocent drivers out, a proliferation of ineffectual speed cameras, road diversions that direct drivers through toll charging zones, traffic lights that are red 99.99% of the time, bus lanes and bus stops that generate more congestion than they solve, road works on the same street, road works on the same street, road works on the same street and to top it all, an increase in the cost and size of the congestion charging zone which is already damaging small businesses and may ultimately ruin the communities living in these zones.
http://www.newbusiness.co.uk/cgi-bin/sh ... pl?id=2669
http://www.newbusiness.co.uk/cgi-bin/sh ... pl?id=2763
The driving force and premise behind all of these revenue-generating strategies is that congestion is getting worse so they have to take measures to deal with it.
Is it really that much of a surprise that congestion is getting worse with this level of mismanagement and lack of understanding? Aren’t these schemes just another form of tax to line the local authorities’ coffers? What benefits have befallen our communities with the millions in proceeds from these controls? New leisure centres? Better parks and play grounds? Recycling facilities? Or, none of the above?
Although you may feel this is off topic, I think it’s spot on. The CPZ is just another money making scheme that we, as residents of Sydenham, won’t see a penny of in the form of new facilities and amenities.
There isn’t much of a parking problem in Sydenham at the moment and hopefully it wont get any worse with the introduction of the East London Line. I’ve never failed to park my car near my home and I see plenty of spaces in adjacent streets if need be.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/rail/initiatives/ ... tion.shtml
The situation certainly isn’t bad enough now to justify this scheme and if is it introduced, what impact will it have on our high street? Will it stop someone pulling over and buying a pint of milk in fear of the parking menace slapping a £50.00 ticket on their windscreen? We should be encouraging businesses and not hindering them. We all want Sydenham to improve and re-generate, not to become a highly regimented and authoritarian place to live.
In the meantime, there are a multitude of other more pressing issues to resolve such as slow traffic flow on Sydenham high street, Westwood Hill and Kirkdale during rush hour etc, etc, etc. Let’s address these issues first then consider a CPZ once the East London Line is well established and the issue of parking is more pronounced.
http://www.newbusiness.co.uk/cgi-bin/sh ... pl?id=2669
http://www.newbusiness.co.uk/cgi-bin/sh ... pl?id=2763
The driving force and premise behind all of these revenue-generating strategies is that congestion is getting worse so they have to take measures to deal with it.
Is it really that much of a surprise that congestion is getting worse with this level of mismanagement and lack of understanding? Aren’t these schemes just another form of tax to line the local authorities’ coffers? What benefits have befallen our communities with the millions in proceeds from these controls? New leisure centres? Better parks and play grounds? Recycling facilities? Or, none of the above?
Although you may feel this is off topic, I think it’s spot on. The CPZ is just another money making scheme that we, as residents of Sydenham, won’t see a penny of in the form of new facilities and amenities.
There isn’t much of a parking problem in Sydenham at the moment and hopefully it wont get any worse with the introduction of the East London Line. I’ve never failed to park my car near my home and I see plenty of spaces in adjacent streets if need be.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/rail/initiatives/ ... tion.shtml
The situation certainly isn’t bad enough now to justify this scheme and if is it introduced, what impact will it have on our high street? Will it stop someone pulling over and buying a pint of milk in fear of the parking menace slapping a £50.00 ticket on their windscreen? We should be encouraging businesses and not hindering them. We all want Sydenham to improve and re-generate, not to become a highly regimented and authoritarian place to live.
In the meantime, there are a multitude of other more pressing issues to resolve such as slow traffic flow on Sydenham high street, Westwood Hill and Kirkdale during rush hour etc, etc, etc. Let’s address these issues first then consider a CPZ once the East London Line is well established and the issue of parking is more pronounced.
My opinion on this is based on what I do when I see a CPZ. If I see a CPZ I park somewhere else and that's what I want the commuters and car abandoners to do on my street. I have had to put up with somebody abandoning their car outside my house for months (fully taxed so not legally removable) until I intervened. I often find it hard to find a nearby space and with total self-interest I am in favour.
I accept that many people (such as Paulse) live in particular streets where parking by outsiders is so severe that residents will vote for a CPZ. I remain to be convinced that sufficient numbers exist outside these central "hot" areas to carry a positive vote for CPZs in the area as a whole. If you talk to people in "upper " Sydenham (the area to the left and right as you go up Westwood Hill , for example) they are totally perplexed as to why they should vote for a CPZ since absolutely NO outsiders park in their area. For this reason, I would predict a very heavy vote against CPZs in both SE26 and SE23. Perhaps in five years time, the vote can be retaken and long-term parking will be so severe that a vote can be positive. In the meantime, can we ask LBL to return to the real issues of traffic that residents of this area ARE concerned about namely traffic flow, speeding and rat running.
cpzs, traffic calming, and the like.....
We in Se23 / se23.com have similar concerns about CPZ's and ratrunning.
Local campaign groups have been formed to encourage the Council to take steps towards traffic calming. Discussion has also focussed on CPZ.s and one of the main queries seems to be the Council's proposed decision making process in this matter.
Enquries to the Town Hall have revealed that there is no formal closing date for this exercise. Why not? When do they propose to carry out the assessment? And how?
Chris Best has advised she will support the majority view however majority where? This survey is being carried out borough wide. Are the Council proposing to assess the view across the whole borough or street by street. ? Either way would be a crude instrument of measure. If my street does not want a CPZ , and an adjoining street does, then this changes the question entirely as there will be an impact on my street.
Every area is different and has its own pressures, ie near stations, shopping centres, hospitals, where it is likely to be very difficult to park near home.
This survey would appear to be rather flawed and needs refinement or at least we the public ought to be clear how the statistics will be handled.
What has been made clear is that there is much more that can be done by this Council to reduce parking pressure on residential areas, ie using existing opportunities to provide low cost public car parking - the car park next to Forest Hill station for instance -and also using the planning system to provide adequate car parking within new developments. The Council would appear to have been remiss in some recent developments in Forest Hill, arguing that the lack of car parking provision is intended to reduce car ownership. Wrong. Unless there is some other measure initiated through the planning system to stop people parking on the street ( car free schemes- can't apply for parking permits) as in inner London boroughs where only permit parking is possible, this will only serve to put increasing pressure on existing streets.
The recent redevelopment and relaunch of the Horniman is admirable with the exception of the complete failure to attend to parking provision.
There are ads in tube stations all over London advising people that there is ample car parking in nearby streets.
In summary, there are significant steps that can be taken before CPZ's are foisted on reluctant communities. Lets see some.
Local campaign groups have been formed to encourage the Council to take steps towards traffic calming. Discussion has also focussed on CPZ.s and one of the main queries seems to be the Council's proposed decision making process in this matter.
Enquries to the Town Hall have revealed that there is no formal closing date for this exercise. Why not? When do they propose to carry out the assessment? And how?
Chris Best has advised she will support the majority view however majority where? This survey is being carried out borough wide. Are the Council proposing to assess the view across the whole borough or street by street. ? Either way would be a crude instrument of measure. If my street does not want a CPZ , and an adjoining street does, then this changes the question entirely as there will be an impact on my street.
Every area is different and has its own pressures, ie near stations, shopping centres, hospitals, where it is likely to be very difficult to park near home.
This survey would appear to be rather flawed and needs refinement or at least we the public ought to be clear how the statistics will be handled.
What has been made clear is that there is much more that can be done by this Council to reduce parking pressure on residential areas, ie using existing opportunities to provide low cost public car parking - the car park next to Forest Hill station for instance -and also using the planning system to provide adequate car parking within new developments. The Council would appear to have been remiss in some recent developments in Forest Hill, arguing that the lack of car parking provision is intended to reduce car ownership. Wrong. Unless there is some other measure initiated through the planning system to stop people parking on the street ( car free schemes- can't apply for parking permits) as in inner London boroughs where only permit parking is possible, this will only serve to put increasing pressure on existing streets.
The recent redevelopment and relaunch of the Horniman is admirable with the exception of the complete failure to attend to parking provision.
There are ads in tube stations all over London advising people that there is ample car parking in nearby streets.
In summary, there are significant steps that can be taken before CPZ's are foisted on reluctant communities. Lets see some.
In answer to Roz's questions above:
1. There are a number of CPZ consultations taking place in the borough. There are two in our local area, one in Forest Hill and one in Sydenham both centred on the main shopping areas/stations. The vote is for a "zone" - everyone in the proposed zone gets a vote and the CPZ is installed in that zone (or nor installed) according to the majority vote within the zone. This NOT a borough wide consultation where a majority vote (for or against) will install zones in every street in the borough - it's an area by area vote and that is made very very clear on the consultation leaflet. CPZs don't work unless they are istalled as a zone - you can't allow one or two streets within the zone to opt out. If you did, those streets would immediately be flooded with parked cars and the residents there would very quickly demand to be included in the zone.
2. You mention that a great deal can be done by the council to provide low cost parking to ease the pressure on town centres such as Forest Hill and Sydenham. I am totally unaware of enough space within these two areas to provide such parking. When the Forest Hill car park close to the station was free, it was filled entirely with commuter cars so that no-one could park to shop - surely you are not proposing that we should provide hundreds of car parking spaces close to stations just for commuters?
3. I am not in favour of CPZs but at least the council is trying to debate the issue and see what residents think. The real question we all have to face (and yes, I too am a car owner) is what the hell we do about the increasing amount of cars and the rapidly dwindling space in which we have to park them in cities. Walk down practically every street in Sydenham and Forest Hill late in the evening (when presumably all the cars belong to residents) and you'll see that there are very few available parking spaces. Within five to ten years this will have reached crisis point. No amount of alterations to planning laws or provision of a few extra parking spaces around stations is going to have much effect in the long run. At this point a majority of locals may be willing to vote for CPZs.
1. There are a number of CPZ consultations taking place in the borough. There are two in our local area, one in Forest Hill and one in Sydenham both centred on the main shopping areas/stations. The vote is for a "zone" - everyone in the proposed zone gets a vote and the CPZ is installed in that zone (or nor installed) according to the majority vote within the zone. This NOT a borough wide consultation where a majority vote (for or against) will install zones in every street in the borough - it's an area by area vote and that is made very very clear on the consultation leaflet. CPZs don't work unless they are istalled as a zone - you can't allow one or two streets within the zone to opt out. If you did, those streets would immediately be flooded with parked cars and the residents there would very quickly demand to be included in the zone.
2. You mention that a great deal can be done by the council to provide low cost parking to ease the pressure on town centres such as Forest Hill and Sydenham. I am totally unaware of enough space within these two areas to provide such parking. When the Forest Hill car park close to the station was free, it was filled entirely with commuter cars so that no-one could park to shop - surely you are not proposing that we should provide hundreds of car parking spaces close to stations just for commuters?
3. I am not in favour of CPZs but at least the council is trying to debate the issue and see what residents think. The real question we all have to face (and yes, I too am a car owner) is what the hell we do about the increasing amount of cars and the rapidly dwindling space in which we have to park them in cities. Walk down practically every street in Sydenham and Forest Hill late in the evening (when presumably all the cars belong to residents) and you'll see that there are very few available parking spaces. Within five to ten years this will have reached crisis point. No amount of alterations to planning laws or provision of a few extra parking spaces around stations is going to have much effect in the long run. At this point a majority of locals may be willing to vote for CPZs.
Thanks to Nasaroc for the enlightening perspective.
I am still not clear what constitutes our '' zone' . Perhaps I need to clarify with the Council.
As regards the provision of car park areas I do not have all the answers but do not think all possibilities have been exhausted as yet. I was not aware that the Forest Hill car park was full of commuter parking, however I do not see anything wrong in catering for commuters as with the East London line coming, there will be otherwise increased pressure on our streets. If there is a wish to retain Forest Hill and Sydenham as thriving commercial centres the maximisation of such opportunities is surely the best way forward, rather than let nature take its course, leaving the only option as residents to pay through the nose for residents parking and have our visiting family and friends hassled by traffic wardens.
The impact of the East London line is still in my mind very unclear- at least I do not know what it is. what the Council have done to assess it, and or any steps taken to mitigate any deleterious effects.
Unfortunately it is still my cynical view that the Council is doing this CPZ exercise now first and foremost as a revenue increasing measure - ie another one of Labours stealth taxes. I am aware that they need to increase the roads budget and have heard Councillors themselves say that this is one way of raising the revenue.
We are not yet 5 or 10 years down the line where such drastic measures such as CPZ's are necessary in all areas. The best time to address this problem is surely when it actually becomes a problem.
I don't agree that it is not worthwhile making the most of the planning system in the granting of new residential permissions. The Council currently have the UDP a policy relaxing parking requirements around key transport nodes such as stations in the misguided view that this proximity to public transport reduces car ownership. It so very patently doesn't. The answer to this is to reduce housing density around these nodes where there is parking and traffic pressure and to insist on adequate on site provision.
That said, also a car owner, I have similar concerns about future increasing car use and ownership and the impact on our streets and neighbourhoods. I have read with dismay the proposals for Bell Green and the fact that provision is made for 600 cars. This is going to have a further negative impact on our streets.
I am still not clear what constitutes our '' zone' . Perhaps I need to clarify with the Council.
As regards the provision of car park areas I do not have all the answers but do not think all possibilities have been exhausted as yet. I was not aware that the Forest Hill car park was full of commuter parking, however I do not see anything wrong in catering for commuters as with the East London line coming, there will be otherwise increased pressure on our streets. If there is a wish to retain Forest Hill and Sydenham as thriving commercial centres the maximisation of such opportunities is surely the best way forward, rather than let nature take its course, leaving the only option as residents to pay through the nose for residents parking and have our visiting family and friends hassled by traffic wardens.
The impact of the East London line is still in my mind very unclear- at least I do not know what it is. what the Council have done to assess it, and or any steps taken to mitigate any deleterious effects.
Unfortunately it is still my cynical view that the Council is doing this CPZ exercise now first and foremost as a revenue increasing measure - ie another one of Labours stealth taxes. I am aware that they need to increase the roads budget and have heard Councillors themselves say that this is one way of raising the revenue.
We are not yet 5 or 10 years down the line where such drastic measures such as CPZ's are necessary in all areas. The best time to address this problem is surely when it actually becomes a problem.
I don't agree that it is not worthwhile making the most of the planning system in the granting of new residential permissions. The Council currently have the UDP a policy relaxing parking requirements around key transport nodes such as stations in the misguided view that this proximity to public transport reduces car ownership. It so very patently doesn't. The answer to this is to reduce housing density around these nodes where there is parking and traffic pressure and to insist on adequate on site provision.
That said, also a car owner, I have similar concerns about future increasing car use and ownership and the impact on our streets and neighbourhoods. I have read with dismay the proposals for Bell Green and the fact that provision is made for 600 cars. This is going to have a further negative impact on our streets.
Roz - I agree with a great deal of what you say. Can't agree though with your view that we should make it easier for commuters to park in or close to our already crowded town centres. Why should someone who lives close enough to the station to walk or catch a bus be free to park a large lump of metal for ten hours in a residential street or in a car park which could be used by a shopper or resident? And I'm still unclear where all this extra space to cater for an ever-growing number of car-toting commuters is going to come from - except by using local residential streets.
We are all naturally lazy. Some of my neighbours drive each day from one end of my road and park at the other end in order to get 200 yds nearer the station, so they don't have to walk so far. The problem will only stop if you make it more difficult to park long-term close to railway stations and shopping streets, not easier. By all means help the short-term parker intent on shopping, delivery or seeing friends but why help the ten-hour road hog who can't be bothered to get up five minutes earlier?
Incidentally, if you want to learn more about the East London Line extension, our webmaster has provided the necessary link. Go to the home page and under INFO and then TUBE you will find background to the scheme. You ask whether the council has assessed the likely effects of the East London Line Extension on the area? I'll give you one guess!
But you can come along this evening at 7pm to St George's Perry Vale and ask them why not.
We are all naturally lazy. Some of my neighbours drive each day from one end of my road and park at the other end in order to get 200 yds nearer the station, so they don't have to walk so far. The problem will only stop if you make it more difficult to park long-term close to railway stations and shopping streets, not easier. By all means help the short-term parker intent on shopping, delivery or seeing friends but why help the ten-hour road hog who can't be bothered to get up five minutes earlier?
Incidentally, if you want to learn more about the East London Line extension, our webmaster has provided the necessary link. Go to the home page and under INFO and then TUBE you will find background to the scheme. You ask whether the council has assessed the likely effects of the East London Line Extension on the area? I'll give you one guess!
But you can come along this evening at 7pm to St George's Perry Vale and ask them why not.