I hope you are all having a pleasant bank holiday weekend. I’ve been away and unavailable for most of the past week, hence the delay in responding. I’ve read everyone’s comments and will try to respond to as many as possible.
Please also remember that the meeting of Dulwich Community Council where we will discuss this is on Saturday at 2.30pm, at Dulwich Library. Do come along and contribute to the discussion.
[quote]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. [/quote/]
Some of my posts on here are indeed quite lengthy. I am doing my best to answer as many questions as I can, clearly and fully. I am sorry if they bore you.
Your quote above cuts out some crucial words from my sentence: “Its purpose was always to identify [if and] where there was appetite for a controlled parking zone and implement it there.” Your shortened version makes it sound like residents’ views are not important. My full version makes it clear that the consultation responds to demand for a CPZ. I make no apology for this approach whatsoever: where residents want a CPZ, I think the council should facilitate this; where they do not this should be respected.
We have been communicating by email, but for the benefit of everyone else who wanted to know what was said at Council Assembly, the whole meeting was live-streamed and a recording is available on YouTube: [youtu.be
Thanks a lot for your comments, I am pleased that you support my suggestions.
No worries, these mistakes happen. I’m pleased that we are on the same page after all. I hope that you now no longer think that I am arrogantly detached from reality, that I should be embarrassed of myself, or that I am treating people as though they are stupid.
You are absolutely correct that the overwhelming majority of people in East Dulwich, and in my ward, do not want a CPZ. I will ensure, therefore, that the overwhelming majority of people in East Dulwich and in my ward do live in one. However, I will strive to balance this with the wishes of those who do want one. There are some streets where 90%+ (even 100% on smaller streets) want a CPZ. As I have made very clear above, and consistently since last last September, the consultation is not an all-or-nothing approach, it looks for where there might be demand for a CPZ and responds to that demand. Achieving this balance requires that I look carefully at the boundaries of a proposed CPZ. This is what I am seeking feedback on here.
[quote]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.[/quote]
You are absolutely right to raise this. It is very clear that this is a real concern of many residents. This is, in part, why I am keen to keep as many as possible of the roads around Lordship Lane CPZ-free, hence my proposal to remove 4 1/2 roads from the CPZ area.
Now let me answer your questions:
how was the undecided category determined - does that mean votes were equally split between for and against?
A road only appeared Red or Green on the map if there was a majority (i.e above 50%) either for or against. If the number of undecided meant that there was not a majority for either side then the street appears Blue.
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?
The first version of the report did not show Melbourne Grove split into two. From my own experiences of canvassing the area, and from the many emails I have recieved on the subject, I knew that there would be a very different response at different ends of this long road. It was for this reason that I asked for this further breakdown to be included. I was correct: the North section is 63% in favour and 26% against, whereas the South is the reverse with 58% against and 36% for.
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?
I have now seen the full dataset. I did not need the full set of data to know that my suggestions would increase the number of people living under an outcome they wanted: that was clear from the data in the report. So I wanted to make these suggestions as soon as possible to give people time to consider them before the Dulwich Community Council meeting.
which two streets did not respond and do we know why they didn't respond?
There are some very small streets in the area with fewer than five properties, and it can sometimes be ambiguous whether or not the collection of properties should even be considered a full street or just a section of another.
What have you done to champion the views of the traders represented in your ward?
In terms of the CPZ I have suggested above, as you know, a proposal to reduce the size of the CPZ so that it does not include streets on which shoppers park. I have also worked with traders on a number of other separate projects.
[quote]That's why so many of us are opposing it with all our might; putting the needs of the many and the vibrancy of our area ahead of the needs and wants of the few.[/quote]
[quote]Isn’t there a person in the area that can represent the residents’ wishes ?[/quote]
This is what I am trying to do. Clearly you disagree, which is fair enough. There will be another election in 3 years’ time in which you will be able to vote for a different candidate - or stand yourself! - if you feel like I am not doing an adequate job.
[quote]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.[/quote]
There is limited parking supply of parking spaces. If supply exceeds demand then there is no problem parking. If demand exceeds supply then there are problems which a CPZ solves. There are a number of streets in the area where this is clearly the case: where demand exceeds supply and where residents experience lots of problems parking. In my view, it is totally reasonable to respond to this by regulating the parking in the area to prioritise the needs of local residents. You are right that this excess demand will then probably - in part - be displaced. (In part because some people will choose to use public transport or active travel instead).But this displacement will only cause problems if the nearby streets are already nearly at maximum capacity: if there is plenty of excess supply then the displaced vehicles will not cause a problem.
In other words, parking displacement from a small CPZ only causes a problem if in the overall area there is excess demand for parking. In which case, that’s an argument for a bigger CPZ not an argument against having one at all. If there is a risk of problems caused by parking displacement then this is further evidence of the acute problems already experienced by those living on streets from which parking would be displaced.
The issue of parking displacement is addressed when the consultation asks respondents if they would support a CPZ if there was one on a neighbouring street.
Thanks a lot for your comments. You’ve raised some interesting points regarding cycling which do not come up enough but I think it is important that council does not implement a CPZ against the wishes of the residents living on those streets. Fair point about engagement of non-drivers though.
Thanks for your comments. Did you see my suggestion above for a smaller area and shorter hours? Do you support that?
There have a been a few quite specific questions about waste collection too. I will find out more information about this and get back to you in full.
I hope you’re all enjoying the sun!
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