Forum Sponsors

www.takeflightacademy.co.uk
xxxx
www.clintonmckenzie.com

http://www.ellyallen.com/

Advertise here

The East Dulwich Forum
Would you recommend your East Dulwich doctor, dentist or butcher?
Goto Page: PreviousFirst...678910111213141516...LastNext
Current Page: 11 of 17
messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by rahrahrah April 13, 05:50AM

How many times have the council pushed for a CPZ over the years? Each time it’s rejected by the majority of residents and each time they come back. It is inevitable that the council will eventually get their way and the whole of ED will end up a CPZ. If you introduce parking restrictions on a small number of streets, traffic gets displaced and impacts neighbours. It will expand over time. When will the council put as much time, effort and money into pursuing positive measures at reducing traffic in the form of better public transport / alternatives to car ownership?

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by KidKruger April 13, 06:28AM

Abe: “What would be least disruptive to the vast majority of residents who do not a CPZ would be simply to implement a CPZ in those streets that want it.”

But of course that would only provide Southwark with a fraction of the income they have decided they actually want - by milking the (always) planned area.
Predatory pricks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was april 13, 06:58am by KidKruger.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by KidKruger April 13, 06:34AM

The consultation is a tick-boxing exercise, those responsible for designing and implementing this should be ashamed of themselves, deceit of the very people they pretend to represent.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by tmcoleman April 13, 07:16AM

Is there a councillor for Peckham West on here who could share the fuller results for question 10 on times of operation? The summary document only uses the results for ‘all day’ and ‘2 hour‘ slot to back up proposal for all day restrictions. I’d like to know the percentage responses for ‘part day’ and ‘other’ to be clear on whether the data really points to an ‘all day’ versus ‘less than all day’ majority. Thank you.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by tmcoleman April 13, 07:26AM

Rahrahrah this has already happened. The introduction of the Denmark Hill parking zone in January 2019 has put unbearable pressure on the parking on my street near ED station (in Peckham West zone). If the Denmark Hill zone had not been implemented we wouldn’t I don’t think be having this consultation process now. I do agree with your comments.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by first mate April 13, 07:52AM

I wonder how much this consultation exercise has cost? There was a comment along the lines of costs of consultation to be absorbed by CPZ when up and running. So, yet another, albeit lesser, reason for council to ignore the majority and pursue CPZ, no matter what.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by jamesmcash April 13, 10:57AM

Dear all

I will try to respond to as many comments and questions as I can.

Differential charging for petrol and diesel
Siduhe - the differential charging for petrol and diesel cars was not included in the East Dulwich consultation because it is a borough-wide issue. The differential charging has not yet been confirmed but if introduced it will apply to controlled parking zones across Southwark. It was part of the Southwark Labour manifesto which we were elected on in 2018.

Mikeb - there will be a session like the one you describe at Dulwich Community Council on 27th April. This will give residents a chance to discuss the proposals before the Community Council issues a recommendation to the council.

Externalities and traffic displacement
You are right that the introduction of a CPZ in one area leads to externalities felt in others. The most obvious is the one you mention: that it could lead to higher parking pressure on neighbouring streets. This is why the council asks residents if their view would change if a CPZ was introduced on a neighbouring street. There are clearly some streets where residents feel strongly that a CPZ should be introduced because their current parking situation is unmanageable. If managing the parking on those streets down to a reasonable and appropriate level makes parking on neighbouring streets unmanageable then in my view this is an argument the CPZ to be wider, not for it to not exist at all. Why should the residents on Derwent Grove and the north section of Melbourne Grove have to put up with nightmare parking just because people elsewhere do not want a parking zone? Parking is not a public good so when is in scarce supply, as it is in sections of East Dulwich, it needs to be regulated. And then of course there is the consideration of another externality: the impact of the poor air quality on a much wider group of people.

Sporthuntor - Sorry for not responding earlier. I didn’t realise that you expected a response. When you refer to “the group of streets to the west of Lordship Lane below Matham Grove” do you mean Ashbourne Grove, Chesterfield Grove, Blackwater Street, Bassano Street and the southern section of Melbourne Grove? If so, you will see that I raised this exact same question myself in my first post of yesterday (the one which shared the interim report and which kicked off this discussion in the first place).

Rahrahrah - The council is doing various things regarding improving and encouraging active travel (bike lanes, walking etc) but a lot of this is out of our control. TfL are responsible for most public transport, and the central government has cuts its government grant.

KidKruger - I have noted your strongly-felt feelings on the subject.

Tmcoleman - Email me with your address and if you are a Goose Green resident I will look into it for you, and if not I will pass you onto the relevant councillors.

First mate - I do not know the cost for this consultation specifically but in general they cost about £20,000

Finally can I say that I am quite surprised and disappointed by the tone of some of the responses on here. I appreciate that this is an issue which divides opinion, and for which feelings are strong on either side, but there is really no need for personal attacks or swearing. I am only on here because I want to encourage genuine engagement on the issue and to find a solution which suits the most people possible. Regardless of what you think of the issue itself, the motivation for doing this consultation is positive. The council wants to improve air quality and make it easier to park for those who have expressed concerns about it. It is true that a CPZ can raise revenue for the council too but we do not know how much: it is illegal for the council to introduce one for revenue raising reasons and therefore also illegal for the council to model how much it will raise. But even then, I think we should remember that revenue raised by the council does not go into the offshore bank accounts of unaccountable billionaires, it goes right back into the public services we all rely on. It is totally fair enough for people to have strong opinions on whether a CPZ is introduced on their street or on neighbouring streets, but I think it would be positive if we started the discussion with the assumption that the process is a genuine attempt to engage local people on an issue that splits opinion and not a conspiracy organised by evil council officers.

Best wishes and enjoy your weekends!
James

--------------------
James McAsh - Labour Councillor for Goose Green ward
James.McAsh@Southwark.gov.uk
[www.jamesmcash.com] [twitter.com]

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]

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Rockets April 13, 11:28AM

James,
The challenge you face is that this whole process has highlighted why so many people have lost faith in politics and politicians. It was obvious to everyone what the result was going to be, and that was the result the council wanted a CPZ to raise revenue and skewed the process to ensure it happened. When the majority in the consultation area voted against it the council reduced the size of the area to create a "majority" and even then a large number of the roads impacted voted against but get it anyway - that is not democracy.

You represent a ward that overwhelmingly voted against the CPZ yet you pull the party line putting party politics ahead of the desires of the majority of your constituents. This is why people are sick of politics. You represent a ward where traders are massively concerned about the impact of the CPZ on their livelihoods yet you, and your party, have neglected them allowing them to become collateral damage.

The more we all look at the results the more we realise what a whitewash this has been.

At some point I hope an elected official will actually stand up for the views and desires of the majority of their constituents - I would vote for them and I am sure lots of others would.

69% of the respondents in the consultation area voted against it yet the area still gets a CPZ that will impact all. How is that democratic?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was april 13, 11:44am by Rockets.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Jacqui5254 April 13, 11:50AM

This. A thousand times.



Rockets Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> James,
> The challenge you face is that this whole process
> has highlighted why so many people have lost faith
> in politics and politicians. It was obvious to
> everyone what the result was going to be, and that
> was the result the council wanted a CPZ to raise
> revenue and skewed the process to ensure it
> happened. When the majority in the consultation
> area voted against it the council reduced the size
> of the area to create a "majority" and even then a
> large number of the roads impacted voted against
> but get it anyway - that is not democracy.
>
> You represent a ward that overwhelmingly voted
> against the CPZ yet you pull the party line
> putting party politics ahead of the desires of the
> majority of your constituents. This is why people
> are sick of politics. You represent a ward where
> traders are massively concerned about the impact
> of the CPZ on their livelihoods yet you, and your
> party, have neglected them allowing them to become
> collateral damage.
>
> The more we all look at the results the more we
> realise what a whitewash this has been.
>
> At some point I hope an elected official will
> actually stand up for the views and desires of the
> majority of their constituents - I would vote for
> them and I am sure lots of others would.
>
> 69% of the respondents in the consultation area
> voted against it yet the area still gets a CPZ
> that will impact all. How is that democratic?

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by AC1964 April 13, 11:56AM

"Finally can I say that I am quite surprised and disappointed by the tone of some of the responses on here."

Condescending much?

Patronising much?

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by KidKruger April 13, 12:39PM

You need to expect that kind of tone and sentiment when people are being pissed on and they realise it.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Penguin68 April 13, 12:47PM

The council stated they wanted to stop 'commuters' parking up in ED - apparently at the request of (some) residents - we warned that many of the 'commuters' were in fact teaching, medical, shop keeping staff and tradespeople who were coming into ED to serve us in ED, not to pass through.

Through commuters could have been deterred by a limited time (2 hour) CPZ - but not those coming to meet our local needs. So the council's intent to support a day-long CPZ - against the broad wishes of probably a majority (the figures are fudged here) - means (probably) that they realize that without that, any CPZ would be seen by those clamouring for one as not working - were through commuters the real issue.

I just hope all those living in the (quite few) streets that were majority CPZ are relaxed about schools and clinics closing, or finding it difficult to recruit, about not being able to get local tradespeople to serve them and so on.

Those if us who were against a CPZ at all will of course just have to go hang - but then no change there.

If the CPZ 'zone' was smaller - not including roads that expressed a contrary opinion - and was for a 'through commuter deterrent' time slot I could be happier to believe that the council was responding to local opinion. But then, it's really not so responsive - this is part of its stated anti-car agenda. Let's see how far our local ward representatives get in any toning down of the proposals they seek on our behalf.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by dougiefreeman April 13, 12:56PM

Nothing to add to this, but bumping as I, as I am sure like others, would like to hear Cllr McAsh’s response to this exact comment.

Bravo Rockets, you hit the nail on the head here.

Rockets Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> James,
> The challenge you face is that this whole process
> has highlighted why so many people have lost faith
> in politics and politicians. It was obvious to
> everyone what the result was going to be, and that
> was the result the council wanted a CPZ to raise
> revenue and skewed the process to ensure it
> happened. When the majority in the consultation
> area voted against it the council reduced the size
> of the area to create a "majority" and even then a
> large number of the roads impacted voted against
> but get it anyway - that is not democracy.
>
> You represent a ward that overwhelmingly voted
> against the CPZ yet you pull the party line
> putting party politics ahead of the desires of the
> majority of your constituents. This is why people
> are sick of politics. You represent a ward where
> traders are massively concerned about the impact
> of the CPZ on their livelihoods yet you, and your
> party, have neglected them allowing them to become
> collateral damage.
>
> The more we all look at the results the more we
> realise what a whitewash this has been.
>
> At some point I hope an elected official will
> actually stand up for the views and desires of the
> majority of their constituents - I would vote for
> them and I am sure lots of others would.
>
> 69% of the respondents in the consultation area
> voted against it yet the area still gets a CPZ
> that will impact all. How is that democratic?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit was april 13, 12:57pm by dougiefreeman.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by singalto April 13, 04:38PM

What are ‘externalities’?

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by ED_moots April 13, 05:14PM

Hi James, please confirm what weight was given to the signed letter with 62 signatories and the deputation made by Vale Residents Association?

Were the 62 signatures verified and what was the substance of the deputation?

The nucleus of the VRA are pro CPZ and had prepared a letter of support from all roads it represents without any valid data from us. This was later amended to give a neutral stance but I know they also leafletted and wanted to know what they presented at the DCC meeting.

Since they canvassed very hard on these streets, so presumably captured as many signatures as they could muster, is it fair to assume that the council is imposing this CPZ on us with the support of just 62 residents/families?

The hours of operation also seem totally unrelated to commuter parking and will harm local business. By 'externatilities' I presume you mean our neighbours for whom a CPZ has not been proposed but will definitely be impacted.

I live on Melbourne Grove (North) and am totally unconvinced that CPZ will improve parking for residents - except the small number who like to pop out in their cars during the day and would prefer to return and park very close to their home. This, again, is a tiny minority in Ed.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Eileen April 14, 02:46AM

Dear Cllr James - This is what it says in the CPZ report:
"A final report and an Individual Decision Making (IDM) report with final recommendations will be presented to
the Cabinet Member for decision making. The IDM report will include feedback received from the Community
Council and any representations to Council Assembly on 27 March 2019."

Has this time schedule been overtaken? Which Council Assembly is it going to now?

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by jamesmcash April 14, 10:22AM

Dear all

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:
Quote:
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.

Best wishes
James

--------------------
James McAsh - Labour Councillor for Goose Green ward
James.McAsh@Southwark.gov.uk
[www.jamesmcash.com] [twitter.com]

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.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Penguin68 April 14, 11:47AM

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:

James, it was precisely to your initial post that I was responding - I said Let's see how far our local ward representatives get in any toning down of the proposals they seek on our behalf. as an 'I hear what you say, but what impact will you (and other local councillors) actually have over the apparat?'. You have suggested a reduction in the geographic scope and a review of the CPZ time limits, based on any responses to you - which my post was intended to be. I rather thought I had been answering, in my way, your 'few quick questions'. I was then querying how effective local opinion being fed back to the Tooley St machine would be, based on their interpretation of their own polling results. I hope to stand amazed at your effectiveness.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by jamesmcash April 14, 01:14PM

Dear Penguin68

Thanks for clarifying.

Best wishes
James

--------------------
James McAsh - Labour Councillor for Goose Green ward
James.McAsh@Southwark.gov.uk
[www.jamesmcash.com] [twitter.com]

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]

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Abe_froeman April 14, 01:47PM

Two sentences stick out from that very lengthy essay above.

" Its purpose was always to identify ...a controlled parking zone and implement it...""

This is entriely unsurprising.

"I do not have the full figures available to me so I cannot work out the exact statistics"

This is ought to be utterly embarrassing.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by ED_moots April 14, 03:03PM

"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."

Hi James, thanks for the reply answering part of my question. Could you confirm the substance of the deputation from VRA please? If this was minuted please steer me to a link.

Furthermore, most of the hardstandings (which have dropped curbs) on MG North do not fit a normal family car and are not used. Even if the proposed double yellow lines are reduced to 1mtr the impact will be a loss of around 6 car spaces. If the council implements more mixed use bays then more residents parking will be lost.

To whom should I submit an FOI request for all the data returned from the consultation?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was april 14, 03:21pm by ED_moots.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by redjam April 14, 04:41PM

Given the overwhelming majority of ED residents are clearly against the CPZ, it seems obvious that - if we are forced to have it in the area around the station - the zone should:

a) include only the smallest possible number of streets, i.e. none of the streets that voted against it should be rounded up into the zone, and
b) be operational for the shortest amount of time, i.e. 2 hours.

Otherwise all the surrounding streets will suffer from the negative effects of the zone, as will the local traders with the resulting knock-on effect.

Honestly, my faith in politics is at an all-time low what with the debacle of Brexit and this on the local level. When you've got a 69% majority voting against a CPZ - 69%!! - despite a consultation that was so biased in its wording that it was actually insulting, and not even including the thousands of signatures that the shopkeepers collected, how can the council POSSIBLY interpret that as a mandate to impose a CPZ on such a large area - including several streets that voted against it - for the whole day?

So James, yes please do fight to minimise the impacts of this zone on behalf of the majority of your voters if you can. Good luck.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Penguin68 April 15, 10:15AM

James

I have now had a chance of reading full details of the council's planned garden waste scheme. It appears that in future even for those paying the £30 annual fee only a single brown bin of garden waste will be collected weekly. Any additional waste (in paid-for paper sacks) will have to be collected only by subsequent special arrangement with the council. My garden (and I'm not alone in this) gets 'blitzed' on a monthly basis March-December - and at some times - e.g. autumn - I generate far more green waste in such a blitz than I can reasonably compost ( most of my garden would become a compost heap). In the past I have had as many as 10 paper bags filled in addition to my brown bin. At the moment all the waste is collected at once, meaning that there is no need for an additional collection (with the costs that that entails). If residents are to either pay for sacks and/ or brown bin collection for garden waste surely the most efficient method of collection is to collect once a week from streets taking everything (which will have been paid for one way or another) at once. Otherwise my only conclusion is that the council is interested in reducing organic recycling - or encouraging people to e.g. pave or landscape more of their gardens away. Neither seem to me to be a 'green' approach.

We are being asked to pay for a service which was previously covered by Council Tax, and in paying for it, it is also being reduced. Taking away with one hand and then taking away with the other. And you wonder why we are cynical about politicians local and national?

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Sporthuntor April 15, 10:53AM

Hi James

Thanks for coming back - I did not read your note properly (sorry about that), glad you will push for the reduction in CPZ area so that contiguous streets that did not back it are excluded and hours of operation reduced. I really hope you can get the Tooley Street machine to accept what local residents and businesses want.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Rockets April 15, 11:34AM

James,
Thank you for your response.

The over-whelming majority of residents in East Dulwich, and particularly your ward, do not want the CPZ - that is abundantly clear - as they are worried about the impact it will have on the area as a whole.

One stat that stood out was that 25% of all respondents raised concerns about the impact on Lordship Lane. These responses were unprompted, as there was not a question asking this, and that is huge. The concerns are real and are being overlooked by you and the council.

We all knew the council would force a CPZ through and create a process to "justify" implementation. As Kissinger famously said to a group of media: "Has anyone got any questions for my answers", the council has created a process and consultation document to railroad a CPZ through, knowing full well that if they get a CPZ in one area this will create challenges in neighbouring areas and will help them justify future CPZ expansion.

The council carefully created a consultation document that deliberately did not ask whether people wanted it in the area - just their street. We all know if the question about a CPZ in the area had been asked the council would not be able to implement it - that's why it was not asked.

But I am not so sure it is a clear cut as I actually think the wording of the consultation may create issues for the council and further analysis of the results will be required.

For example, could you to address these questions:

- how was the undecided category determined - does that mean votes were equally split between for and against?
- how will the council manage the split results through Melbourne Grove as it is clear one half wants it - the other doesn't and any impact on those roads who voted against it? (I know you are trying to address this)
- why have you not seen the data - you are the elected official for the area and I would have thought it was vital you have the data to hand before you sent your note about your suggestions for tweaks to the plan?
- which two streets did not respond and do we know why they didn't respond?
- What have you done to champion the views of the traders represented in your ward?


The sense of frustration people feel is that we would have hoped that someone from the elected representatives in the ward would have taken a more pragmatic approach and say - we cannot impose a CPZ on the area - there is, bar a small cluster of streets within the VRA area, overwhelming sentiment that this is not what the area wants. The impact of any CPZ will be felt across the breadth of your ward and that is why people have campaigned so hard against it - they know that any CPZ in the area will be damaging.

From day one it has been clear you have supported the CPZ and have done little to champion the true feelings of the ward you represent. The traders have been consistent in their message that all of the local councillors have not shown any interest in their concerns and it was shocking watching the video of the council meeting how the VRA were given an enthusiastic round of applause by the councillors and yet the independent traders were not given such a rousing reception. It was clear to all from the body language in that room that we were heading for a CPZ in the area and the VRA were the shills to help it happen.

It is good to see you trying to get the size of the CPZ reduced but, to be honest, it feels like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. I think a lot of us just wish you had been more active from day one, had put party politics aside and had better represented the views your constituents.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by KidKruger April 15, 12:16PM

Isn’t there a person in the area that can represent the residents’ wishes ?

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by first mate April 15, 12:50PM

I find the stated aim to treat all residents wishes 'equally' so disingenuous. It is quite clear that even a small number of streets with all day CPZ will cause parking displacement at some point, leading to more CPZ at some point. The Council and Councillors know this... it is simply a matter of how long achieving full CPZ takes them.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by rollflick April 15, 09:12PM

It's funny how many people claim their opposition to a CPZ is driven by concern for the shops on Lordship Lane when most of those in the consultation who expressed an opinion opposed the measures to increase bus priority. According to the 2015 LBSU study, almost 50% *more* people travelled to Lordship Lane by bus than by car. At a time when our bus services are under threat, bus drivers reported delays here due to parking and in a borough where the majority don't own a car, hindering bus access is not going to help the street's viability.

The council did a really good job in the consultation by seeking the views of the wider area beyond the parking hotspots, having listened to those (disclosure: including me) who highlighted how they failed to consult or listen to those affected by displacement from the Dog Kennel Hill zone. But however many times Cllr McAsh points out again on this thread or elsewhere that this was never a vote but a consultation as part of a parking study, sadly it seems some will never listen.

On his question 1, there's a strong case to include the streets between North Cross Road and Crystal Palace Road, where there was also resident support. Otherwise that area, which is still walkable to ED station, will have two new CPZs on either side and inevitably face serious pressure. There's a strong case including the northern bit of Crystal Palace Road and Oakhurst Grove/Solway Road north of the road closure. Although there isn't currently resident support for these, the latter will face displacement from the Peckham West zone, which it should have been considered part of. Meanwhile the Crystal Palace/ED Road is the most dangerous junction for cycling on all of the proposed spine route (at least on roads controlled by Southwark) and only by increasing the length of the cycle lane significantly can it be made safer.

On question 2, some people will have wanted a CPZ to operate longer in the evening (as some have pointed out in this Forum, there are parking pressures then) so it does seem the best approach is to go for 8.30-6.30 as proposed.

If I have any criticism it's that the consultation process seems to have failed to engage those who currently or potentially travel by bus or cycle, even if non-resident. The more people that travel by bus and cycle, the more viable and safer our bus and cycle routes are.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Sporthuntor April 16, 01:23AM

Crimes how much did the council pay you to write that rollflick? Absolutely nothing you say here is supported by the statistics. Hold on...did you write the consultation documents? That would make sense...

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by kristymac1 April 16, 11:23AM

James,
In relation to the upcoming changes to collection of graden/food waste please can you confirm whethe Southwark Council combines garden waste and food waste once collected? (either at the curb side or back at the depot)

If so, it seems utterly ludicrous that when I choose to subscribe to the £30/year brown bin collection that I will not be able to put food waste in there as well as garden waste (which is the system now), instead I will have to have ANOTHER plastic bin in my front garden just for food waste!

If the two compostable components are not combined at the curb side - does this really mean that Southwark will have 2 collection lorries attending the same property every week for the collection of compostable waste?

I am reasonably happy to pay the £30/year charge for brown bin collection - I am certainly not happy at the seemingly ill-thought through process and a complete waste of resources providing additional food waste bins and separate lorry collections - seriously, this is proper 'back of a fag packet' stuff and is an embarrassingly obvious waste of much needed Council resources.

Goto Page: PreviousFirst...678910111213141516...LastNext
Current Page: 11 of 17

Back to top of page
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Donate                   Terms of use                  Help & FAQs                   Advertise               RSS rss feed               Copyright 2006 - 2018 East Dulwich Forum