Controlled parking zones in Lambeth

Discussion in 'Brixton' started by Brixton Hatter, Dec 7, 2009.

  1. se5

    se5 Well-Known Member

    I agree and for those occasions when a car is more convenient there are car clubs - there are over 10 cars available within 10 minutes of where I live. And of course taxis.

    As for the cost: an extra £150 a year on top of insurance, vehicle excise duty, servicing, MOT etc isnt going to suddenly make a car unaffordable for the poorest families. And the car owning poorest families are already likely to be paying for parking permits already - all the car parks adjacent to council blocks require permits.
  2. se5

    se5 Well-Known Member

    This is exactly why we need a cpz in the proposed M zone - all the surrounding areas in Lambeth and Southwark are CPZs and we get the vehicles displaced from those. If in charge I would personally impose a CPZ across the whole borough like (I think) Islington has done.

    As for the cost yes a lot of it will go in enforcement but at least some will go into the central council revenue account and so the council can use it for other things thus meaning they do not have to raise so much from council tax.
  3. billythefish

    billythefish toad licker

    Displacement? Absolutely - the roads south and east from here voted against the CPZ and are completely crammed 24/7. The best compromise seems to be that mentioned earlier in the thread where the zone is only enforced for a couple of hours during the middle of the day to deter commuters.
    It's had no effect on how often I use my car. I only use it when absolutely necessary, which 90% of the time is to get me to remote parts of the countryside (rather than around the city) for both business and pleasure.
    No idea how many permits have been issued, but I'd guess that most of the money goes on the small army of enforcement staff and their mopeds.
  4. ajdown

    ajdown Posting in this thread

    That is exactly the problem - but why make residents suffer by charging them to park where they live? They aren't the problem, but the people guilty of causing the problem will simply displace to another street and transfer the problem elsewhere, with the knock-on effect already identified until the whole of Lambeth is a CPZ .

    Unfortunately, it's exactly the sort of dumb solution I'd expect from a council with the reputation that Lambeth has gained over the years.
  5. billythefish

    billythefish toad licker

    I wouldn't single Lambeth out for CPZ behaviour. They've actually been a lot slower introducing them than most councils I've experienced such as Wandsworth, Oxford, Kensington and Chelsea and Camden.
  6. gaijingirl

    gaijingirl Well-Known Member

    Just for the record (and not to detract from your general point), I live in a Lambeth council block and we don't need permits on our estate. It's only a matter of time though I reckon. (I don't own a car btw).
  7. se5

    se5 Well-Known Member

    I stand corrected - I was basing my remark on what a friend told me about her estate nearby.
  8. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    So you accept there is a "problem"? How would you propose to solve it?
  9. se5

    se5 Well-Known Member

    Why is this a dumb solution? Why should inner city Lambeth provide free parking for people driving in from elsewhere?

    Compare the map of Lambeth CPZs

    with Southwark

    and you will see that the proposed M zone stands out as the only place with free parking anywhere near to central South London
  10. trashpony

    trashpony Ovaries and tings

    If you live on a street where you can never park within 200m of your front door, you might appreciate a CPZ. And besides, it stops people driving in short stupid distances. But I forgot that ajdown thinks being a car owner/driver is a 'right'
  11. co-op

    co-op Free the rhubarb crumble!

    Just a minor point in some ways but it's not "49% of people in Lambeth who own a car", it's 49% of households in Lambeth with a car (or cars) registered at an address in Lambeth. This doesn't unfortunately tell us very much about how many people really "have access" to a car (which is how the figure is often used). An example of when this info is confusing is shared houses where one person has a car (a situation I have been in, and I certainly didn't have access to it).

    More generally - it doesn't tell us what percentage of the Lambeth population "have access" to a car; my suspicion is that a pretty large number of car-owners in the borough will be - eg - young couples, meaning that only two people will "have access" to the car when the average household size in Lambeth is larger than that.

    Also Lambeth has a pretty massive internal range of wealth; some wards will have car-ownership at way above the 49% level, others way below. I have never had time to really get down to ward-level analysis of car-ownership, because those figures are hard to get at but, according to The Brixton Society (who are not a bunch of be-dreadlock'd anarchists) in their "Lambeth Community Strategy Consultation Draft" (February 2004), ·

    "In wards such as Coldharbour, Vassall, Stockwell and Larkhall up to 89% of households don’t have a car;

    Over 80% of the borough’s pensioners and 62% of Lambeth’s lone parents don’t have a car;

    Three quarters of people in employment rely on public transport to get to work."

    Myatts Field's CPZ will almost certainly be within Vassall ward. My gess is that the "up to 89%" of households figure applies to Stockwell or Larkhall rather than Myatts Fields but it would appear that households with a car registered to them are a pretty small minority in Myatts Fields and almost certainly an even smaller proportion of the population will "have access" to those cars.

    All of which is a long way round of saying that the present massive bias in favour of car-owners is not just self-defeating (there just isn't enough space), stupid ecologically and highly destructive of the social fabric of our communities, but also hugely undemocratic in areas like most of north Lambeth and they are de facto subsidised by the massive non car-owning majority.

    It needs to change.
  12. se5

    se5 Well-Known Member

    Exactly - very well put and thanks for clarifying the figures.
  13. ajdown

    ajdown Posting in this thread

    Why is that a problem?

    I don't have children, yet my taxes go towards providing education for other people's children.

    I rarely use the health service yet my taxes go towards providing healthcare for everyone else.

    So when can I expect some action and/or rebates to even up my tax burden for these and the other services I'm paying for but not using?
  14. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    1. Does people having children have a negative impact on the people of Lambeth as a whole?
    Debatable. However, you can't stop people having children, and refusing to care for or educate the children would be unfair on the children, because they didn't have any choice in whether or not they came into existence.

    2. Does providing access to healthcare to all regardless of means have a negative impact on the people of Lambeth as a whole? No. Do people have a choice in whether they become ill or not? No.

    3. Does allowing unrestricted car use to those who can afford a car have a negative impact on the people of Lambeth as a whole. YES. Do people in Lambeth have a choice about whether or not to own a car? YES.
  15. co-op

    co-op Free the rhubarb crumble!

    Firstly, I'm not sure if you've quite understood the logic of taxation; if it was just a question of trying to get back out exactly what you put in and in exactly the same ratio that you used any given service there wouldn't be any point in taxation, you might as well just let people spend their money on what they want. Taxation is a means of obtaining collective social goods unrealisable by individual action. What those goods are is what politics is all about.

    But my point about the subsidy that the majority of non-car owning Lambethians are currently bearing is that it seems to have slipped out of political debate. Hence my trying to put it back in. All we tend to hear is the car-owning minority complaining about how their "rights" are being taken away. In fact they are routinely diverting huge amounts of space and money away from the majority. Now they may think that IS their right (you seem to think so, unless I've misunderstood you) but I'd like to see that debate carried out. Why do you think a small unrepresentative minority (with above average wealth) should be favoured in this way? What is the social gain?

    Your last example - the health service - btw, is not really about in/out analysis at all. It is essentially a form of insurance. A sensible citizen would happily pay in and hope that they would never ever need it - who would want to get a whopping great illness just to square up their accounts? It's a safety net in the case of the worst.
  16. ricbake

    ricbake working out how


    Proposed Controlled Parking Zone Vassall Area
    Informal Consultation (22 Sep 2016 - 20 Oct 2016)
    Deadline for responses
    ON Thursday 20 October 2016 AT 11pm

    Lambeth's Parking Stress survey - June 2016 -

    During the survey 3,900 vehicles used 2,400 spaces

    A total of two roads had parking stresses of less than 80%, and these were:  Loughborough Park Parade, and Mostyn Road.

     A total of twenty roads had parking stresses of between 80% and 100%, and these were  Akerman Road, Brief Street, Calais Street, Cancell Road, Claribel Road, Cormont Road, Frederick Crescent, Halsmere Road, Inglis Street, Knatchbull Road, Langton Road, Lilford Road, Lothian Road, Loughborough Road, Minet Road, Normandy Road, Paulet Road, Russell Grove, Templar Street, and Tindall Street.
     A total of twenty one roads had parking stresses of over 100%, and these were:  Angell Park Gardens, Angell Road, Barrington Road, Belinda Road, Cranmer Road, Elam Street, Elliott Road, Evandale Road, Gordon Grove, Holland Grove, Loughborough Park, Millbrook Road, Moorland Road, Myatt Road, Patmos Road, Penford Road, Vassall Road, Somerleyton Road, St James Crescent, Upstall Street, Welby Street

    To take control of our streets the Council need to impose a Controlled Parking Zone. This will mean only vehicles registered to local addresses will be able to get annual permits at a cost that works out at about 35 to 70 pence per day. There will be visitor permits available to households, otherwise there will be pay and display bays.

    This will remove all commuter parking - Cars left Monday to Friday by those living in CPZ areas nearby - abandoned cars - people sleeping in cars - people leaving cars here whilst on holiday - bulk parking of hire cars etc etc

    I live in the middle of this free parking free for all and it is a nightmare - yes its an additional expense to have a CPZ but with control over a 1000 fewer vehicles will be coming into these residential streets for free parking every Monday morning.

    This is how the responses to the 2010 survey looked - it was rejected then but a close run thing -the streets are much worse now.
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2016
    Gramsci likes this.
  17. ricbake

    ricbake working out how

  18. T & P

    T & P |-o-| (-o-) |-o-|

    I suspect the reason many of such consultations don't meet with residents' approval is because of the fees Lambeth charges for resident parking permits. If the council wants them approved they should try proposing charges of £30 or £40 a year, not £160+.
    Smick and hendo like this.
  19. CH1

    CH1 "Red Guard"(NLYL)

    Nitpicker that I am I was dismayed to see Patmos Road has - in the survey - become Pathos Road. Not inappropriate once in the clutches of the Lambeth Traffic Engineers perhaps.

    The other thing is this "Vassall Area" seems to be 50% Coldharbour if you ask me.

    I am non-driver whose residential parking outside for maintenance was compromised long ago by controlled parking (maybe 1990?).

    How then has Loughborough Road between Fiveways and Brixton Road escaped controlled parking all these years? It must be a nightmare to drive down, at least in daylight hours.
  20. ricbake

    ricbake working out how

    Hadn't previously noticed Patmos had become Pathos in the study - but I understand your empathy

    I believe the use of "Vassall" to describe the area is a short hand that possibly does lead to some confusion
    the JMP survey report does refer/allude to the fact Vassall Area isn't Vassall Ward.

    Loughborough Road at the Brixton Road end is a total disaster of inconsiderate road rage inducing drivers without a modicum of sense every morning and evening... daylight has little effect. Part of the rationale behind the trial closure at the southern end of Loughborough Road was to alleviate it

    Controlled parking will improve the situation but not sort it out
    CH1 likes this.
  21. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    The road closure did alleviate it. Particularly in the mornings and evenings.

    It will not sort it out if parking - whether in a CPZ or not - is allowed on both sides of the street.

    Despite this it was still opposed by residents.

    When the hated road closure was in operation I saw , for the first time, an ambulance using it one morning. Going I presume to Kings.

    The present state of affairs is that its a side road people use to park on + a "main" road that car drivers demand to have open as a two way street. :facepalm:

    Whatever the Council proposes on road use they are onto to a hiding.

    The reason there has not been an outcry about CPZ zone in this area is that the Loughborough Estate has parking on the estate.
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2016
  22. Brixton Hatter

    Brixton Hatter Home is south London mate

    The situation has massively changed since I posted the first post on this thread 7 years ago. Vassall is one of the few places around Brixton with unrestricted parking. In 2009 there was no problem - now, the roads are chocka all day. I've moved to Ferndale now but if I was still in Vassall I would now support the CPZ.

    I don't own a car btw.

    It's a pain in the arse where I live now having to get visitors' permits, and my friends/family have been done plenty of times by officious parking wardens who won't even give you 30 seconds grace. But it does restrict parking to residents only (except Sundays, when our road is fucked with extra cars.)

    I'd like to go further now with our road: block one end off (or the middle of the road) and introduce filtered permeability, i.e. pedestrians, cyclists etc can get through, but vehicles can't, leaving just access for residents - and no way through for rat runners. This is the future. Living streets.

    Last edited: Oct 18, 2016
    teuchter, ricbake, Gramsci and 2 others like this.
  23. ricbake

    ricbake working out how

    Brixton Hatter likes this.
  24. cuppa tee

    cuppa tee Well-Known Member

    the champagne corks will be popping tonight then..........
    great to see democracy in action.........

  25. Brixton Hatter

    Brixton Hatter Home is south London mate


    Ultimately it's good for the local roads if fewer people are driving to the area from the outskirts of London to park and then get public transport. This is what London needs.
    teuchter and ricbake like this.
  26. T & P

    T & P |-o-| (-o-) |-o-|

    Completely agree, a given IMO.

    There is little justification for Lambeth charging residents three-figure fees for permits though. That will almost certainly be why such proposals keep getting rejected in some areas. Charge a nominal low amount like £20- £30 a year, and I'd imagine every consultation would return a 'yes' result.

    Where I live in Tulse Hill we have a controlled parking zone. A few hundred yards away there is a large free parking area. The difference I've observed in both local traffic movement and availability of parking spaces is staggering. Nobody in their right mind would want to endure the extra traffic, noise, lack of parking spaces and pollution. But I can see how being asked to pay £170+ to park your car in your street (and in Lambeth it is pretty much just your street and the next street down the road, a ludicrously small permit area) will put off many people.
  27. Brixton Hatter

    Brixton Hatter Home is south London mate

    I don't think £100-odd quid is unreasonable, is it? 30p a day or something? Storing your private property on the public highway which everyone else has paid for, car owners or not...?
    teuchter and Winot like this.
  28. Smick

    Smick Strictly Second Class

    Nobody is going to pay £100. I live in an area without cpz, I'd welcome it as M-F, 8-6 the road is full of commuters using Tulse Hill Station. My current car is a modern 1.2 petrol and they'd want £150 for that. The last one was a 15 year old 1.6 petrol and that would have been £260. If you can afford a new hybrid, you're ok but if you're stuck with a banger you'll pay half thecar's value to leave it outside your house. Cars don't even pollute when they're parked so why base the permit on co2?
  29. Winot

    Winot I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint

    Local authorities have had their budgets slashed by central government and local services are fucked. They are desparate to raise cash any way they can. Personally I haven't got a problem with them raising money taxing the ownership of an object that takes up public space, is polluting and congestion-causing when used, and is owned by the better off in the borough.
    Brixton Hatter and teuchter like this.
  30. Smick

    Smick Strictly Second Class

    But for those who have a car, it disproportionally taxes those who can't afford a newer one?

    We never had a car before we had kids. Then we had a child and got a car, then had another child. We were doing about 2,000 miles a year and it was costing about £1,000 to keep it on the road. We sold the old one for £400 and found it difficult without it so we got another and will probably always have one. The main use is to go to Lidl in Norbury or to get out of London at the weekends.

    We took the bus to the swimming pool last Saturday, walking distance for an able bodied adult, we couldn't get a seat, the bus driver jammed on the brakes, our three year old banged his head on the handrail. I wished we had taken the car.

    I look back on our days without kids and a car as being idyllic. Walking where possible, being able to stop for a drink and take public transport home, no MoT, tax, insurance or dickheads scratching or breaking into it. So I understand why you might take your position. But not everyone's in the same position.
    redsquirrel likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice