I hope that everyone is having a pleasant and relaxing weekend.
To respond to the queries above:
Rockets - Thank you very much for your comments. I do have a lot of sympathy for your position. Ultimately though, I disagree with your analysis of how the consultation should work. It was never designed as a vote or a referendum in the way that you are describing it. If it had been then I would agree that this outcome is unreasonable: if we redrew the constituency boundaries after people had voted in an election to ensure that particular parties were elected that would rightfully cause outrage. But this consultation was never designed to be analysed like this. Its purpose was always to identify if and where there was appetite for a controlled parking zone and implement it there. I am sorry if this was not clear from the consultation documents itself but I have always made this very clear to everyone who has contacted me.
Back on September 2nd - months before the consultation began - I stated so on this thread: The consultation will identify what appetite there is for controlled parking in different areas. The consultation area is quite big but the results will not be all-or-nothing. In other words, if controlled parking is popular in some areas but not in others then the former can have controlled parking and the latter not.
Contrary to your comment ”It was obvious to everyone what the result was going to be”
I do not think it was always clear. In fact, it seemed like a lot of people thought that the council would impose a CPZ on the entire area regardless of how people voted. I wanted to reassure these residents that this was not the case so on January 29th I pledged that the only potential outcomes from the consultation were the following:
- Outright rejection of the proposal on the grounds of majority opposition. This was the case with the last East Dulwich consultation in 2012.
- Outright implementation of the proposal following majority support. This has happened in a number of places for instance Thorburn Square.
- Partial implementation of the proposal in a contiguous sub-area where the proposal was supported. This happened in Herne Hill.
I spoke to the Leader of the Council, Peter John, and asked of his assurance that this pledge would be honoured. He said it would, and it has been.
68% of residents in the area said they did not want a CPZ. So if we do not implement a CPZ then 68% of people will live in an area with their desired outcome. I do not have the full figures available to me so I cannot work out the exact statistics but if there is a small majority-supported CPZ around the station (either the office recommended one, or the slightly smaller one that I suggested above) then it is a mathematical certainty that this will mean that more than 68% of people will live in an area with their desired outcome: a majority of those opposed in the area with no CPZ; and a majority of those supporting in the area with one. I do not think that this is undemocratic at all; quite the opposite.
As I say, if your hope or expectation was that the consultation be treated as a straight Yes/No referendum for the whole area, then I fully understand why you are unhappy with the recommendations. But this was never the case so what I am trying to do now is find the best possible solution, following the process I outlined right from the start. This will inevitably be a compromise.
Penguin68 - Did you see my suggestions above? My initial post on this thread after the consultation report came out was to ask a few quick questions of people on here. I will repost it here for ease:
Question 1: size of the zone
Any Controlled Parking Zone needs to have boundaries which make sense. The officer recommendation is for a zone which is bound to the north by Grove Vale, to the west by the railway line, and to the east by Lordship Lane. These boundaries seem relatively simple and straightforward to me. However, the boundary to the south seems more arbitrary. Ashbourne Grove, Chesterfield Grove, Bassano Street and Blackwater Street are included whilst Lytcott Grove, Playfield Crescent and Colwell Road are excluded. I suspect that were the latter roads to be included then the zone would no longer have a majority in support of a CPZ so it makes sense to exclude them, but I think there is a question over whether the former four streets should be included. If the objective is to create the biggest possible CPZ whilst still maintaining a majority for it, then it makes sense to include them. But if the objective is to find a zone which pleases the maximum number of people then removing the four streets would mean that a greater number of people are living under an outcome that they supported. None of these streets returned a majority in favour of the CPZ. The same logic applies to removing the southern section of Melbourne Grove (south of East Dulwich Grove)
Moreover, I suspect that these streets are rarely used for commuter parking at the station, but often used by shoppers visiting Lordship Lane. So removing these streets might further alleviate any concerns regarding the impact on local traders. The streets left remaining in the proposed CPZ are not generally used by shoppers.
What do you think? If a CPZ goes ahead with the proposed area, should Melbourne Grove south, Ashbourne Grove, Chesterfield Grove, Bassano Street and Blackwater Street be included?
Question 2: Hours of operation
Of those living within the officer’s proposed area, 44% want the CPZ to be operational all day (8.30am to 6.30pm), compared to 27% for two hour controls and 18% for ‘Other’. This makes it the most popular option of the three. However, I assume that those who selected ‘Other’ want the zone to be operational for either less than 2 hours per day, or for more than 2 hours but less than all day. I doubt that those selecting ‘Other’ were doing so because they wanted the zone to be operational throughout the night.
If this assumption holds then it means that, while 8.30am-6.30pm is the most popular option of the three, the majority of respondents in this area would prefer it to be shorter.
What do you think? If a CPZ goes ahead with the proposed area, either with or without the streets mentioned in Question 1, should it be operational from 8.30am to 6.30pm or for a shorter period of time?
Question 3: Other comments
The two questions above were just the ones which jumped out at us. But if anyone has any further comments it would be great to hear them too.
That said, I do not think it is worth rehashing the arguments for and against a CPZ in general. I know that there are strong opinions on both sides of the debate, and finding these out was the purpose of the consultation. For me at least, the question now is how to use the information we have to decide an outcome that best meets the conflicting views and concerns of different people in the area.
Singalto - I used the word ‘externalities’ in response to mikeb who used it too. It’s a term in economics. Essentially it means an impact on a third party caused by a transaction or relationship between two other parties. In this example, if a CPZ is implemented on one set of streets, an externality is the impact on parking in nearby streets where no CPZ is implemented.
ED_moots - the decision on where to implement a CPZ is based on the consultation responses. In that sense, the deputation had no weight. However, where it (and also the traders petition, presented at the same council assembly) does have weight is in helping the Councillors to understand the range of opinions on the issue. But no one assumes that those speaking in the deputation speak on behalf of everyone on those roads.
Eileen - This sentence is clumsily phrased. What it means is that there will be a final report issued to the Cabinet Member and this will include feedback from the Council Assembly just passed (27th March) and from the Community Council coming (27th April). The Community Council is open to everyone living in Goose Green, Dulwich Hill, Dulwich Wood, and Dulwich Village ward. Do come along to have your view heard.
James McAsh - Labour Councillor for Goose Green ward
Surgeries: 2nd and 4th Thursdays of the month at 7pm, East Dulwich Community Centre on Darrell Road
Sign up to the Goose Green councillor newsletter: [www.jamesmcash.com
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was april 14, 02:40pm by jamesmcash.