Lewisham cuts £33m, doubles the cost of resident parking

Lewisham Council yesterday agreed a package of £33m in savings. In addition to the £1m expected to be saved by closing or transferring management of five libraries in the borough, the South London Press reports that other measures agreed include:
  • Amersham Early Years Centre, in Amersham Road, New Cross, which offers childcare, will also close in August.
  • Costs for the borough's remaining three early years centres will be upped by as much as £50 a week for parents.
  • Charges for the meals on wheels service are going up, there will be less home care support for elderly people and the council will start using staff members rather than consultants to investigate deaths of kids in care.
The Council also resolved to double the cost of resident parking permits from £60 per annum to £120.

Given the abject state of parking enforcement in many parts of the borough, a low-cost CPZ scheme has been suggested by many as a way of reducing parking abuse in Brockley. This move by the Council may put a few off the idea.

133 comments:

Anonymous said...

Nope, it actually reinforces my opinion that we need CPZs in Brockley. Very few people in Brockley actually need a car, living as we do in zone 2 in London. If people want to park their car on the road, they should be willing to pay for the privilege.

Anyone who can afford to run a car can also afford to pay an extra 60 quid a year to park the thing.

Brockley Nick said...

OK, that's fair enough and I sort of agree with you, although if rate rises can be imposed arbitrarily (rather than tied to the cost of the scheme) then it could be treated as a cash cow by a cash strapped Council.

Tamsin said...

Anecdotally (so it's not data) they are treated as cash-cows by Councils and an increase to £120 would only be the start of it.
And for every household that consists of a banker with a supercar and yummy mummy with a people carrier (where they should pay for the privilege) there are probably two or three where a car is needed either by a care worker or health visitor with a caseload that is impossible anyway, let alone by public transport or a rep. or repairer with work ranging around the outer suburbs and Kent. A lot of Welling is a long way from the station or bus routes.

Inside the conservation area a CPZ would mean a lot of street clutter. Outside it - you get conversions to hard standing for off-street parking with the creeping environmental impact that entails.

Miss Merx said...

I don't think that's a fair comment at all! I'm quite offended actually. I'm a mobile therapist so my car is my office and I struggle enough being self employed trying to put food on my table and a roof over my head. I pay more than enough taxes on virtually everything in my life and having CPZs go up by DOUBLE is a damn nerve. Why should I have to pay to park outside my own house? Do I not pay enough to live there already?? And what about parents with small children and babies who need their car for all sorts of reasons?

Not everyone in Brockley works in the city or off a train/tube line. So ignorant.

And if you're so brazen to have such an opinion, why be anonymous?

Anonymous said...

Ban CPZs.

Tommo said...

£120 is probably a fair price. Other London boroughs, Lambeth and Islington to name a couple, charge somewhere around that figure.

An extra £60 per year works out at roughly an extra 16 pence per day, the sort of price increase that the TfL's passengers would swallow with barely a murmour, however when this is applied to the motor car it seems it's a different matter.

That said, there would ideally be some regulation to make sure that the councils don't treat CPZs as a 'cash cow' and that future price increases are in line with inflation.

Anonymous said...

Precisely why I don't want CPZ. Been there, done that.

Ed said...

£10 a month for a much better chance of parking locally, no vans or commuters in our 'village' etc. yes please!

@Tamsin I disagree with you as ever. '£120 would only be the start of it; utter speculation but it has to be admired. The cost may have doubled to help with the looming cuts but if you expect the same every year you are misguided. I also think it has been much cheaper than bordering councils' CPZ schemes.

@Merx In the context of the costs associated with running a car (or indeed a business) it is relatively low cost and it allows for fairer use (for example the zone 2 parkers we get at Brockley station would be stuffed) hugely increasing your chances of parking locally.

CPZ for Brockley please Lewisham. I thought I'd hate it when I lived in Brixton for a year but I always parked within yards of my house and I am now very much in favour.

Just to annoy some of you I am thinking of selling my car (ELL/OG is pretty good) but still support CPZ!

Lady GaGa said...

We've had an unnecessary CPZ in Hither Green for years Monday - Friday 9-7pm. On the very outer edges the wardens don't bother to patrol so why it couldn't have been introduced just for the hours of 11am-2pm to deter the small amount of commuter parking the Council wouldn't explain or accept. These times work perfectly effectively in Eltham and Bexleyheath for example. When it was first introduced the cost of an annual permit was £30 but it's gone up every year, as has the cost of permits for visitor parking. Nor do the Council grant exemptions,i.e if there is a funeral. CPZs are absoultely just an excuse for the Council to raise revenue and it will be interesting to see if the legal challenge by residents in Barnet against such an arbitary rise in their Borough is successful. As for the first anon quote, is he/she a cyclist ?Motorists already pay over the odds for the so called privilege of running a car, as anyone who has filled up with fuel lately will confirm.

Brockley Kiwi said...

I'm selfishly supportive of the removal of services that I don't use but I have to pay for with my council tax.

But it mildly irks me that I have to pay more through increases in direct or indiect charges for remaining services that I don't personally use.

patrick1971 said...

@Merx: "Why should I have to pay to park outside my own house?"

The clue is in the word "outside". You don't own that space; it's public. By having a car in London you actively decrease the quality of life for all of its residents, so the "polluter pays" principle applies.

Only double? Quadruple the cost of the things. They should be treated as cash cows; I've no problem with that at all.

Anonymous said...

Residents should be massively in favour of CPZs as, currenyl plenty of people park and ride as it wer, free of charge. They bring no business to the area but we subsidise their lives - by paying thourgh our house prcies to allow them to live cheaply in the countryside and commutefrom our station. Force them to pay to park or pay to live here.

End of story.

thisisengland said...

CPZs make life very difficult for visitors or tradespeople. I know from experience, in K&C for instance.

I don't think we need to be told we don't need a car because we're in zone 2. Most of my car journeys are out of London, not into. Some of the comments are very blinkered and predictably anti-car.

VAL said...

@Miss Merx... because when you're anonymous there can be no possible comeback.
I actually also find these comments unbelievable.
You pay road tax, and lots of other taxes too, so let that be enough for councils. However, parking around the Foxberry Road area is now a nightmare, and I would like to see some kind of controls around the station... butno cash cow. I would not wish to see drivers taxed just to raise revenue. Not that it would effect me. I suggest two hour parking with no return.

Tony said...

I have noticed when I log into this site, and others, that advertising that comes up is related to previous searches I have made on Google. Is there anyway I can stop this 'cyber parking'? It is most annoying!

VAL said...

You need a CPZ.

No thanks said...

Well its £120 now, it will £180.00 the next time there's a funding crisis. Suddenly the vans everywhere don't seem so bad.

Brockley Nick said...

@Tony, Why does that bother you, out of interest?

It's just Google trying to find ads that are relevant to the things you're looking for, rather than things you aren't.

If you use google search or gmail, etc, it's the same.

Anonymous said...

Creative solutions for people that use Brockley as a car park, not CPZ.

max said...

I don't really agree about those that think it's ok to raise the cost of residents' parking.
Nick is correct, it's a cash-cow and it's made it very difficult for those like me that like the scheme to keep on defending it.
£120 is a lot of money for people on low income and some people make sacrifices to service an old banger that they need.
Essentially it's become an extra month of Council Tax, those that struggle to make ends meet (an increasing group) will suffer.

Toby Lerone said...

Car drivers should only be taxed more heavily than usual when there are viable alternatives to car use. In London, there are plenty of alternatives and drivers should be willing to pay a bit more in the form of a CPZ.

@ VAL. Most people pay taxes of some form or another. If people wish to park their car on a public road where it is having a detrimental effect on other individuals and businesses then they should have to pay more tax.

@ Thisisengland. Does it make a difference whether your car journeys are into London or out of London? Can't see how that will affect the manner in which you park your car, sorry.

Headhunter said...

I'm in 2 minds about this... I can see that a CPZ would prevent all the vans and commuter cars littered along local residential streets and as people have pointed out, if you wish to own a car in zone 2 London, pollute public air and park on public land then you should pay for the privilege. Also aso someone else pointed out, a rise from £60 per year to £120 is 16p per day, public transport users have to swallow increases way in excess of this! As a non car owner, I have no problem with the council getting people who use cars to pay up, my local council tax pays for the roads to be re tarmacked when cars have damaged them, so it's about time those who drive paid up and plenty of people would argue that despite taxes on fuel etc, motoring in the UK is in fact subsidised by the taxpayer.

However I can also see that there would be a lot of inconvenience in getting "trades people" round or having friends from out of London with cars visting and I'm not a fan of something which might cause people to pave more front gardens...

drakefell debaser said...

"You pay road tax, and lots of other taxes too, so let that be enough for councils"

Val, no one pays road tax. It is a myth kept alive by Jeremy Clarkson etc. Winston Churchill abolished to prevent the motorist thinking the road was theirs alone.

drakefell debaser said...

Isn't it illegal to now pave over the front of your house with a non-porous surface. Or is that just wishful thinking on my part?

Anonymous said...

Residents' parking? Is that really the most important part of these cuts?

CPZMan said...

Could it mean (where possible) people turning there front gardens into parking spaces.

Monkeyboy said...

No particular opinion on the CPZ, but are we getting terribly excited about the wrong thing?

reducing childcare places and adding £50 a week to the remaining will be a massive blow to some families, especially single parents. £50 is no small number, it will affect those on middle incomes too I'm sure.

Is this where a whole new sector of society begins to realise that austerity includes them? And that not all those who use public services are feckless scroungers.


[That was a party political broadcast from the Mb Party}

Headhunter said...

Val - "Road tax" is actually VED (Vehicle Excise Duty) and is not used to fund roads, it gets tipped into the general pot of taxation to fnd anything from schools and hospitals to the armed forces and nuclear submarines. "Road tax" does not give motorists any more or less right to the road than tobacco tax gives smokers the right to blow smoke in your face as you walk past a pub or tax on alcohol gives a p*ssed person the right to barf on the footpath outside your house....

drakefell debaser said...

As for the first anon quote, is he/she a cyclist ?Motorists already pay over the odds for the so called privilege of running a car, as anyone who has filled up with fuel lately will confirm.

Lady Gaga, so what if the person is a cyclist? Does using a bicycle mean that you are excluded from giving an opinion?

As for fuel prices, we all pay because the food and goods we consume cost more to transport in the first place.

Andy Endwell said...

CPZ's are a complete and utter nightmare!

You voted for it said...

Life is just going to get a lot more harsh. The past few years most of us have been doing alright, flats, holidays, organic food, bars, buying art, living really well, this is going to change.

You voted for it said...

Life is just going to get a lot more harsh. The past few years most of us have been doing alright, flats, holidays, organic food, bars, buying art, living really well, this is going to change.

Mouse said...

@ Drakefell Debaser - National guidance on permeable surfacing was released in 2008. Since then householders need planning permission to lay anything other than a permeable surface when converting a front garden into a driveway.

No, some of us voted for it. said...

No shit sherlock.

drakefell debaser said...

Thanks Mouse.

Lou Baker said...

As a cyclist I'd like to vote for the cyclist comment as being among this threads most ridiculous. If more people cycled, London would be a much better place than it is.

However I also have a car, which I use occasionally. I have no problem with paying for a CPZ - I'd like to see one introduced. And £120 per year does not seem unreasonable to me. It certainly compares favourably to public transport, which is ludicrously priced.

I'd also take issue with the 'you live in London you don't need a car' rubbish. You might not, plenty of people do. Public transport is fine if you need to get to the city centre for 9am. If you work shifts at Heathrow and start work at 4am or finish at midnight, public transport is worse than useless. We should all drive less and only take the car when we really need to. But to suggest no one ever needs to is just plain dumb.

Anonymous said...

Correct Mouse,so you dont need planning permission to lay block paving.Don't know if the conservation people would complain though.

Anonymous said...

Excellent, Lou is asking for european levels of subsidy to make fares affordable. I always new that Lou was a closet socialist.....that or mental.

thisisengland said...

Oh dear tobylerone (1 chunk shorter I hear?) I was replying to the comment that asserted there was no need for a car if you live in zone 2. I don't believe I mentioned parking. But since you brought it up, focussing on 'its only 16p a day' ignores that this charge is yet one more charge ordinary people may have to find, on top of the rapidly increasing price of oil, electricity, gas, food, cotton, and just about everything essential. Suddenly doubling the price of parking is one more tax.

Whatever the reasons for introducing any sort of parking controls, they become a monster that needs ever more money to finance. Wardens, line painting, signs etc have to be paid for, so the money raised is less about congestion or safety or whatever other reason and more simply about revenue.

Lady GaGa said...

If you are a cyclist then YES you are excluded from commenting on a CPZ as it will only affect car owners. Those are the people with vehicles that have registration numbers so they are easily identifable if they are stupid enough to think they can flout the Highway Code becuse it doesn't apply to them - red light jumping, pavement cycling, no lights etc. etc. Lady GaGa is not anti cyclist just anti anyone who thinks the accepted laws for all road users are not applicable to them.

CPZ said...

Yes it does reinforces it. Please Council bring the CPZ to Brockley. thanks!

Brockley Nick said...

@Ladygaga

"If you are a cyclist then YES you are excluded from commenting on a CPZ as it will only affect car owners."

This idea that car owners and cyclists are somehow separate species is extremely damaging. I am a cyclist and own a car. I think you'll find the majority of "cyclists" who post on BC are also car owners.

Tommo said...

@Lou

No one said anything about not needing a car if you live in London. Obviously plenty of people do need a car and they should quite rightly, pay a bit more to park it.

Many people however could happily manage without one and if CPZs persuade some people that they could actually do without one, so much the better.

Your heathrow example is a little far-fetched. If you worked there, chances are you wouldn't live in brockley.

You're right that public transport is too expensive.

Anonymous said...

The Council is instead quite stupid, they should double the areas in which they implement CPZ rather than doubling the price

Brockley Nick said...

@Anon - it doesn't work like that. There is a significant cost attached to implementing a CPZ (line painting, enforcement, distributing passes, etc) so doubling the size of a low-cost CPZ won't necessarily raise any more revenue (net of costs).

Ed said...

I confidently predict we will have CPZ at Brockley station by years' end and I think it is a good thing for many of the reasons I and other reasoned posters have made. Comments like Val's 'but you pay other taxes' and another poster's 'there will be too many painted lines' (both paraphrased to save time) just show up the opposing argument frankly; think people think!

Btw there is always provision for traders on CPZ schemes. You really must argue your points better antis...

Brockley Nick said...

@Ed - I'll wager we won't.

Ed said...

You're on Nick; a beer at The Barge or perhaps The Orchard?

Lady GaGa said...

Nick- I don't think cyclists are a seperate species but too many think they are a law unto themselves and many of them "damage" themselves by this attitude. I cycle and I'm also a fully qualified, heavily tested, and regulated HGV driver who drives regularly on the continent, particulary thro' Holland,Belguim and France. And there the cyclists do not break the law as blatently as they do here and that's nothing to do with enforcement of the law but all to do with a better attitud and acceptance of the law for all road users.

Brockley Nick said...

Well then you need to stop saying things like if you are a cyclist you can't talk about car ownership issues.

Your point about cyclists' behaviour on the roads is a whole other argument and entirely irrelevant to this debate.

[But if a cyclist behaves recklessly, the only person they're likely to endanger is themselves. If a vehicle driver behaves recklessly, they're likely to kill people around them, whether they be pedestrians, cyclists or other drivers. Dangerous cyclists are not the biggest danger on our roads - by a mile]

Mb said...

@nick, think of a lycra clad Lou barrelling at full pelt toward you before you dismiss the affect of cyclists on the innocents so lightly.

Lady GaGa said...

Well, I've obviously hit an achilles heel there. My original point was about CPZs and maybe I should have added " and don't own a car you can't validily comment on a CPZ because it doesn't affect you personally." As for going off topic, that often happens on this site and others raised the issue of cycling before me.As for cyclists endangering only themselves........you really have no idea! A cyclist travelling at speed as many do in central london can cause as much damage to a pedestrian as a car crawling along in the traffic jam. I know - I witnessed a horrific accident last week which was the direct result of a cyclist not stopping at a zebra crossing and just riding off leaving carnage -literally- in his/her wake.

Brockley Nick said...

@LadyGaGa - I'm not criticising you for going off topic, I'm criticising you for trying to back up your arguments with non-sequiturs.

How many pedestrian deaths from cyclists in the UK in 2010?

How many road deaths from cars / lorries in the UK in 2010?

Pete said...

Don't get drawn in Nick...

I'm a cyclist and a car owner.

I voted agains the CPZ in Ladywell as I had a strong feeling that this was going to happen and I don't want to pay to park outside my house when previously this hadn't been an issue.

For me as an occassional car user (once or twice a week) paying £120 a year would in percentage terms actually increase the cost of running a car quite a bit. It wouldn't make me get rid of it though as I find it incredibly useful now that we have a small child.

When people say this is only a 16p/day increase they are of course correct. But it is still a 100% increase in the cost. How happy would you be if anything else increase 100% in cost?

Ed said...

It's not a 100% increase in cost for us near Brockley station as we don't yet have the luxury of purchasing the right to enjoy prioritised parking for locals and thus have ended up as a goodsyard/carpark.

I have never known so many cyclists on the pavements as in Brockley although most are youths and I doubt that the BCers who cycle, and there are many, would do such a thing. My new policy is to play chicken with them and hopefully force them back onto the road. Some get really confused when you don't move out of their way.

Anonymous said...

@Brockley Nick, then triple the area and you will see that overtime they make more money.

THNick said...

Lou - I know someone who works near Heathrow, on shifts that sometime finish in the middle of the night and lives in Greater Brockley. He does it without using his car, using trains/bikes.

And Lady Gaga - on my walk back to the station from work this evening, I guarantee I will see a driver jump a red light. I almost got runover the other day by a van that mounted the curb at speed. Bad cyclists are a bane, but dont pretend that drivers are any better, they just use a much more dangerous vehicle to do it.

Anonymous said...

CPZs are used to 'control' parking so it would be a tough sell to increase the area for no reason other than to raise money. Point. missed.

Anonymous said...

CPZs are used to 'control' parking so it would be a tough sell to increase the area for no reason other than to raise money. Point. missed.

Sue said...

At the risk of being pedantic, Lewisham Council hasn't agreed this yet - the Mayor & Cabinet agreed it yesterday, but the budget still has to be voted on by all the councillors in the Council budget meeting. Probably only a formality given the political make-up of the Council now, but it is the one and only time each year when the Mayor does actually need to get the approval of full council to do something.

Lady GaGa said...

My final comments -
CPZs are for the Council to make easy money (see my original post) and as pointed out by several others there will be regular increases in charges as it's an easy option and target.
Cyclists - is it fair that a vehicle(which a cycle is)can be riden by anyone without passing any kind of test of competence,be of any age,any state of mental or physical health, not be subject to mechanial or safety checks/inspections of any kind, can be riden for any length of time, the rider not prosceuted for dangerous"riding" because he/she can't be traced, can use a mobile without being fined.......how many more examples do you need - stats aren't necessary because the comparision is totally unequal.
I'm off now as my spy in the cab tacho permits me to carry on driving

Lou Baker said...

@mb

You'll be pleased to know I never wear Lycra.

@lady gaga

You're right there are some bad cyclists. I am not one. I stop at lights and don't ride on the pavement. However there are plenty of crap drivers - and HGV drivers - too. I've lost count of the number of times I've almost got run over by a moron motorist - necessitating an angry yell and the finger on my part. And I know how you'd all hate Lou to get hurt.

@tommo

The Heathrow example is not far fetched at all. I used to work near the airport while living here and I know at least a dozen people who commute from over this way to over that way. I know one poor sod who commutes from Nunhead to Reading everyday.

Tony said...

2Nick. It's like someone standing over your shoulder as you're reading or writing - and then commenting on something that has absolutely no relevance to what you are doing. I have already made the purchases, so why is Google bombarding me with the hard sell after the event? Quite insidious.

Anonymous said...

People who live in Brockley work all over the place - so agree with Lou on that. Heathrow is a London airport - knew a girl who was an air hostess who drove to work from Brockley a few years ago, maybe it is easier to get there on public transport now but CPZ's are a nightmare. Look at Blackheath - all codes so you don't even know when you can park there like some secret society.

Humphrey said...

I think cyclists should be charged a form of road tax. Call it the Cycle Fund Licence. They should also be charged a 'liftover' tax; if they're caught lifting or moving their bikes across the public payment.
I don't mind if they jum from the road to their doorsteps, but there is no reason why my taxes should go towards subsiding a lycra-wearing semi-flasher!
If they wear black they should be fined.
Weaving in and out of traffic: fined.
Shouting at someone who is crossing the road 'Get out the f-ing way!' - fined (and slapped).
Flashing their lycra-covered crotches: arrested and charged if male. If female and in front of you they should at least slow down to let you have a longer look.

Headhunter said...

If "all" cyclists ride on the pavements, ride recklessly and dangerously and jump red lights, then as far as I'm concerned "all" motorists speed, park dangerously/illegally and drive whilst on their mobiles... and we all know which road user group kills and maims more.

As far as bringing in some kind of registration for cyclists in is concerned, it's been tried in Canada and the Netherlands and abolished as unworkable and inefficient in both places, not least because of the costs concerned in setting it up and cost of police time in enforcement.

If we want to save lives, then getting more people onto bikes and out of their cars is logical, cars kill and injure, not bikes. Making it more difficult to jump on a bike and go will not encourage people out of cars. Getting people onto bikes and out of cars makes sense on so many levels, health savings to the NHS, savings in road surface repairs, savings in pollution damage to buildings and EU fines when London air quality exceeds safe levels etc etc. Driving costs London billions.

Finally, back to compulsory registration, we have registration and compulsory insurance for motor vehicles across the UK, yet drivers still kill and maim around 4000 people per year, so I doubt implementing the same for cyclists would exactly help!

Anonymous said...

How to save the libraries from the founder of Waterstones -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxz326ZKV9o&feature=player_embedded

drakefell debasser said...

Humphrey, way to go. We can conclude that not only are you ignorant but you are also a chauvinist.

drakefell debaser said...

Humphrey, way to go, we can conclude that not only are you massively ignorant but a bit of a chauvinist too.

Bored and tired said...

@Tommo, as it happens my next door neighbour works at Heathrow. So not far-fetched at all. Some people don't have the luxury of choice when it comes to jobs
@Nick, you need to be careful making bets based on a statement as grammatically dodgy as 'there will be a CPZ in place by years' end'! At the end of the year when you call in your pint, Ed could pretend that he clearly didn't mean the end of THIS year... If I were feeling magnanimous I might say that Ed had been quite clever there.

All in it together said...

I agree about cyclists being charged, they've been getting a free ride on the roads (not too mention pavements) for too long now. Enough is enough.

Monkeyboy said...

@Lou, shame. I find the idea of a Lycra encased free market Libertarian storming up Telegraph Hill with the relentless force of a Mallard class locomotive, scattering the lazy and feckless in his wake, an oddly exciting one.

mb said...

erm....childcare costs and meals on wheels...anyone?

Tamsin said...

Just join the Carnival tomorrow.

Cuts hitting the local news tonight - but all they showed of Lewisham was the rumpus in the Town Hall last month.

Marc said...

My CPZ has sold on the premise that the £60pa fee was to cover the cost of the parking wardens and admin.
If the council has changed tact and now utilising it for an incremental revenue stream then they should clarify their positioning on this.
Its not the £120 that scares me, but the level of increase yoy and the ability change the "rules" just like that.

Brockley Nick said...

@Bored - well spotted, though fortunately I haven't agreed to his terms yet - so all I've risked so far is my honour - so I've nothing to lose.

Tamsin said...

They're politicians. They change the rules. Never the honesty of a U-turn and acknowledging they were wrong but a lot of wriggly lines.

Foxberry Mike said...

We did have a Lewisham Council consultation on turning Foxberry Road into a CPZ some years ago and the answer then was 'no' (I even voted no that time). I suspect that by showing that CPZ's will be treated as a cash cow from now on, there is no chance of ever getting a 'yes' vote in future. (LBC only implement CPZ's if they get a yes vote, but perhaps even that may change from now on). (Ed - happy to take on another pint bet, one I would be happy to lose)?
I would now vote yes even after the increase as the parking problems have got so much worse lately and would be happy that the costs were contributing to protecting some other Lewisham services.
For my money I would want to see the zone rigorously imposed by wardens but the current level of enforcement against illegal parking hardly inspires confidence. You would think that the easy revenue currently available from this source would be tapped by Lewisham before closing libraries and all the other service cuts being planned.

It needs to be said said...

About cyclists, the police should arrest them if they are the roads in the dark without lights. How irresponsible can you get?
It's akin to drunk driving.

solutionsnotmoaning said...

cpz has always and will continue to be a cash cow for lewisham council. It has little to do with parking for residents. in lewisham it started at £25. 2 years after that it was £30. 2 years after that £60 now 3 years later it will be £120. NB no announcements no "consultation" they just do it. There are no regulations. The thing that really galls me is how they impose it. 1st move draw parking boxes - that dramatically reduce the parking on your street - not quite enough for everyone. Then impliment thus achieving rich pickings every day. Then double the cost again. You have been warned.

Anonymous said...

Legal battle in East Finchley over parking permit fees
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12485311

Isaac Newton said...

"it's akin to drunk driving" no not really. Kinetic energy is given by the formula energy=mass x velocity squared. A car can go quicker and weighs much more so the amount of damage that it can cause is massively greater than a car. It's like saying that stumbling around a pub after too much Malibu is the same as drinking fifteen pints and driving a HGV through a orphanage playground...an orphanage full of disbabled blind kids.

Detention and write " I will pay attention in physics" 100 times.

exposed. said...

Monkeyboy get on with your essays.

mb said...

Was it that obvious?

PennyPincher said...

I dont think they will offer us a vote,will they ?.It would never be voted in at that amount of money.

Anonymous said...

we want CPZ

£120 pounds is a small price to pay avoid commuters to park in front of my house. Happy to pay it anytime. It would also eliminate the vans problems and the parking in double yellow and double line.

Yes please Council, make us pay. For once I would be happy to pay a tax.

Humphrey said...

At Drakefell the Debased. Are you a lady boy, or a lady - mois "ignorant": never. Why I can speak of a great many things, and with considerably more knowledge than you, juding by some of your meanderings. For instance, I would say to many of you gathered here at this trough, do not worry about the CPZed issue. There are a number of ways around the problem, several of which I have tried over the years adn with repeated and enjoyable success.
For instance...
get a garage
a driveway
go to the doctor. Invent a disability. Bck trouble is a good one. (I've done this and it works a treat. Said I served in the Gulf and got it in action. Daft bugger couldn't check due to the Data Protections Act. I've got a blue badge which is just about to run out so must repeat but no bother.)
change the number plates when parking. (I have had the flip variety with a different number on the back.)
Tell them you're a barrister with considerable wealth, and that you would be happy to meet them in court to argue the issue. (Does not work with police. Unless the officer is a freemason. If so I just give them the handshake and a few secret parables.)
Park on the kerb. All four wheels. Wardens get worried with this in case you're a shopkeeper brin=bing the boss.

I have never payed a fine in my life.

Who is ignorant now?

PS. I may even write a book about the wheezes I'v pulled over the years. Just the other day I got money out of my electricity supplier.

Mb said...

How odd, one post you call for more responsibility to be assumed by bike riders and the next you advocate abusing the benefit system, taking money from those who need it. All you've done is demonstrate your complete lack of social responsibility and an utter selfish egoist sense of morality. A contemptible thief.

Congratulations on taking advantage of most peoples instinct to trust.

Humphrey said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
POTUS said...

There never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not be found to prevent the drawing of the sword.

Lou Baker said...

Jeez - Humphrey sounds like a real right wing arse.

And this is coming from me.

Humphrey said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Brockley Dogging Society said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
POTUS said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Humphrey said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
POTUS said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Humphrey said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
POTUS said...

A man is not finished when he's defeated; he's finished when he quits.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Humphrey said...

The administrator on this site needs to lay off the coco.

Anonymous said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

Another Brockley Left-wing nutter said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

RED TED said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

Brockley Trotski said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

Comment deleted said...

This post has been censored by a dogger

Humphrey said...

Bring Nick back... such a lovely boy. But this chap is rather touchy, isn't he?
Anyway, let's hope my little swindle at airports survives a rather censorious if not touchy grip. (This is the sort of stuff that I'm going to include in the book by the way.) I always phone the airport in advance and tell them that I need a wheelchair. (I don't say I'm disabled, so it's not deception. I know some on this site like "Mb" may be offended but why should I wait for families with kids to board and leave before me.) I get on and off the plane before other passengers. They even sit me away from noisy children. Last trip I was ferried through Heathrow on a golf cart and then given a nice cuppa and a sandwich. Had to feign waiting for a lift though until they got bored and left. Then it was a quick hop and a jump on board a bus headed fora central London hotel. They never check your ticket - and so it's a free ride into town. Have to pretend I'm Johnnie Foreigner on that swindle.
If anyone's interested in more ways to dodge queues, etc, then the book's for you. Still tryin to dream up a good title. I will give a discount to Brockley Central for some free publicity. Does anyone on this site have typing skills who would write my notes up for me? I would of course make a dedication in the book in respect of those services. It might suit a professional woman who is bored with family life.

Tamsin said...

@ Humphrey On reading your first post I thought it wasn't for real - just a rather poor joke. I'm still not sure, but if it is genuine and you do these things AND boast about them it is all rather sad. OK the lastest thing with the airport is not technically a "deception" but it comes pretty close - and something of a disservice to those who are genuinely disabled and in need of the assistance you exploit.

Tim said...

I too am perplexed by Humphrey. Is it serious? If it's a joke, I don't quite get it.

Tim said...

Also, I am perplexed by people in this thread who say things along the lines of "if you live in London, you don't need a car". Maybe I want a car? I play golf and want one to drive into Kent every weekend and pursue my pastime. Depending on the journey, I also prefer to drive in London sometimes, rather than take public transport. I pay handsomely for the privilege and what is wrong with that?
Tim

Mb said...

I think he's trying to be satirical, trouble is he's not witty, funny or making any kind of new or interesting point. Big fat fail

Ed said...

Claiming a 'need' rather than a desire is a deception and factual misrepresentation but what is most embarrassing is your pride.

I hope to be drunk come years' end btw.

Oh and I WANT CPZ for Brockley Cross!

Humphrey said...

Tamsin, my dear girl, you must not carry the weight of the world on such pretty shoulders. I have never deprived any disabeld person of a wheelchair - due to an EU ruling there has to be more chairs, and parking spaces made available than there are disabled people in the country!
Next time you go to Sainsburies store count the disabled places please - there's more than enough! Not because there should be but because there has to be! Is that fair to me! That's why I've never been clamped or towed at a supermarket.
Swindle 999:
Ever been in need of police assistance? If you call 999 the usual response these days will be to tell you to call the woodentops, that's busy-bodies acting like real police. No Tamsin, do what I do. Creative embellishment. Has the property been burgled or is it in the process of being burgled? (Humphrey Hatty response:
I think I can hear someone inside.)
Was that mugger armed? (Humphrey response: He had a gun.)
Was he black? (Humphrey response: Yes, definitely. (The cops soon get there. You can say you made a mistake later if it makes you feel better about the "ehthnicity2 of the individual scumbag.)
Tamsin, by the way, do you type?

Ed said...

Humphrey you are absolutely right, you should be published; just elsewhere please.

Humphrey said...

Ed (I'm going to ignore that enormous ego described as Mb, etc) don't you need a swindle, just a tittle one that I can look up in my notes. I'm sure you'de come round in the end.If any go against you moral code then just ignore them!I'm just trying to make a few bob to feed the kids, that's all!

Tim said...

Humphrey,
We're all confused. Is there a punchline to everything you are saying?

Anonymous said...

I'm sensing a Goldsmiths foundation course. I fear a poor degree from the university of east London and a career pulling pints awaits.

max said...

It's subtler than a punch-line, it's a prick.

Tamsin said...

@ Humphrey - yes, I type, proof-read and copy edit. But, sorry, not for you...

Anonymous said...

i love humphrey

urbansurgery said...

120 is pretty standard for london, if not a little low

Humphrey said...

Tamsin, I would not want to offend you above all. If you could have those dainty little digits bashing the qwerty then I'd be enormously grateful. Okay, so I was lying about having kids but it usually works when people are having a go.

drakefell debaser said...

At Drakefell the Debased. Are you a lady boy, or a lady - mois "ignorant": never. Why I can speak of a great many things, and with considerably more knowledge than you, juding by some of your meanderings.

Humphrey, why do you ask? Are lady boys your thing?

CPZ said...

If one cannot afford £120 a year for parking should take the tube.

Bring the CPZ so we finally clear the streets from commuters.

Is there anything the residents of Brockley can speed up the CPZ???

max said...

Let them eat cake thype of argument really.

Oaksys said...

£33 Million pounds is approximately the interest payment on the £500 Million pounds borrowed by Lewisham Council. If they'd been more careful with their spending and borrowing we would not be in such a poor position now. As a council tax payer I clearly remember those years around the turn of the century when Lewisham Council were imposing above inflation increases in council tax.
If they'd used that extra tax raised in times of plenty we'd be paying less in bank interest. Heaven forbid what would happen if the bank base rate goes up by 2 or 3 percent in order to control inflation.
We are suffering both from central government cuts and financial negligence by Lewisham Council.

Ian on the Hill said...

And off the CPZ (although I can't resist one comment: making parking harder increases pollution and congestion and degrades the quality of our lives)there are two major issues in those proposals.

One is the massive jump in child care costs. An extra £50 quid per week per child. How on earth would a 2 child family come up with an extra £400 net a month? I guess women should just give up working and go back to looking after the house? No, I thought not.

And can we really not have an independent investigation when a child dies in Care? Is it so frequent that it would make massive impact on the budget?

I will never understand why our Care system is so bad and has such awful results. Hell, for the same price we could be sending them to Eton!

Anonymous said...

is not time to rebel against this
theavery. I cannot buy a parking bay outside my house because the road doesn't belong to the council so how is it possible that they can charges us rent for it?

SAY NO! CAN'T FIND ANYWHERE TO PARK ANYWAY!

Mb said...

They have the powers to introduce a parking permit scheme. You may not agree with it but its not theft. My dad used to think he owned the bit of road outside his house, he was wrong too.

Anonymous said...

@Mb
Another rift on your basic more taxing more public spending position, delivered as ever with your trademark condescension.

Mb said...

Simply pointing out that it's not illegal for lewisham to charge for parking. If you think it is, challenge them. You dont isn't the bit of road outside your house. We all do. The rules, charges and penalties for using it are decided by our elected officials. Roads are a public asset, traffic affects everyone whether you own a car a not. Life is tough sometimes.

ste said...

Residents parking permits at £120 a year is another way for the council to get monies and that the extra cost for up keep of the roads, so what about some areas of Lewisham where residents don't need residents parking permits what extra do they pay or are those that pay subsidies those that don't? And why when they say the extra is for the roads that when it snows residents are unfairly treated and residents roads are left unsalted ..this is not about monies for residents parking its more a con to rip of residents that drive a car.

Books and Manuals said...

I'm impressed. You're truly well informed and very intelligent. You wrote something that people could understand and made the subject intriguing for everyone. I'm saving this for future use.

Vivian
Marks Web
www.imarksweb.org

nm said...

I complained to the MP last year: Typical response:
2. New residential Permit on ??? road being introduced. Not happy with this. Where is the money being used?
I would like to assure you that Lewisham Council does appreciate that any new or increases in costs come at a time when many people's household budgets are under severe pressure. However, Lewisham Council is having to cut £80 million from its annual revenue budget over the next 3 years. This is a direct result of the Government chosing to inflict disproportionate cuts on councils and indeed, particularly heavy cuts in inner city areas and areas of significant deprivation.
Lewisham Council has therefore had to take some very difficult decisions about how to maintain investment in its roads, pavements and car parks.
As a result of this, the Mayor was left with few options to maintain their highways budgets, given the pressure across the council as a whole.
Sir Steve has always made it very clear that his priority is to protect the most vulnerable members of our community. In line with this, the Council has and is adopting a number of strategies in order to identify how to deliver these savings whilst protecting the delivery of front line services. One of these strategies was a review of the fees and charges levied on some of the Council's statutory and discretionary services.
The decision to increase the parking charges was strongly influenced by the results of the borough wide Our Lewisham Our Say consultation which revealed that many people would prefer to pay more for some services than see them cut. More than 2,500 people took part in the consultation activities which were conducted between 15 July and 8 October and included discussions in meetings at every local assembly, meetings with community groups and young people, and an online survey and discussion forum.
Statutory consultation was also conducted in order to provide the public with the opportunity to express their views on the proposed increases.
Following this, Lewisham Council has agreed to increase parking charges.
The increase brings the charges closer to the London average, which in 2010/11 was £150 for a resident's parking permit.

Brockley Central Label Cloud