Forum Sponsors

http://www.gardenia-gardens.com

www.takeflightacademy.co.uk

Professional Carpet Cleaning at an affordable price - A & M Carpet Care

Advertise here

The East Dulwich Forum
Would you recommend your builder, plumber, electrician or carpenter?
Goto Page: PreviousFirst...7891011121314151617...LastNext
Current Page: 12 of 18
messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Hemingway April 16, 11:24AM

Rollflick

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.

er, where's the evidence for this, the majority oppose in that area?

"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)"- Evidence? "some people will have wanted", you know this or do you mean you want?

"so it does seem the best approach is to go for 8.30-6.30 as proposed." based on what? yor view?

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Chuckd April 16, 11:44AM

I totally agree with Rollflick
The parking restrictions on Melbourne Grove side of Lordship Lane will mean further pressure on the Crawthew Grove/Crystal Palace Road side of Lordship Lane as visitors seek out free parking. The north end of Crystal Palace Road is already pressured due to the gym/pool. When they redeveloped the leisure centre they made no parking provision for visitors. Sunday night after 6pm when the leisure centre is shut the road is full of parking spaces. If they are going to introduce parking zones they should introduce them on both sides and take into account the leisure centre hours also for those roads adjacent.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Jacqui5254 April 16, 12:09PM

All this so that a few people who live near the station can 'supposedly' park nearer to their homes.....???!!!!

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Abe_froeman April 16, 12:11PM

Well that and the £125 per car per annum, plus parking tickt and pay and display income the council will gouge from constituents and their visitors.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Penguin68 April 16, 12:40PM

I think we can reasonably be certain that the chosen method of implementation will be the one that places major parking stress on adjacent roads - this is part of the 'spread (by which I don't mean alleviate) the pain, increase the revenue, spit on car owners' policy of the council.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Rockets April 16, 07:20PM

Rollflick and Chuckd - don't you see - the council has been, and continues to play, the CPZ jigsaw game? They put one piece in place here and they know that soon they will have to put another piece in there and before you know it everyone has a CPZ and then they'll start charging more and more for the permits and the meters and then everyone will realise what a folly it is and benefits no-one other than the council and their revenue generation plans.

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.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help?
Posted by Juno70 April 19, 09:07AM

James,
I think the proposed area is way too large and the parking times too long. It needs to be reconsidered, reduce the area and reduce the parking times and maybe this is the compromise.
I responded not to have it at all and this is my preferred option first and foremost.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by jamesmcash April 22, 03:07PM

Dear all

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.

Abe _froeman [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.

ed_moots
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]

redjam
Thanks a lot for your comments, I am pleased that you support my suggestions.

sporthuntor
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.

Rockets
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]
Nice reference.

KidKruger [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.

first mate [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.

rollflick
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.

Juno
Thanks for your comments. Did you see my suggestion above for a smaller area and shorter hours? Do you support that?

Waste collection
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!

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 23, 10:36AM

Hi James

Apologies for quoting you selectively but you are in politics, so it is par for your course now!

I am pleased to hear you now have the full dataset . Please could you confirm where we can access this information too?
For many of the reasons expressed on this subject already, I would be very interested to see for myself how well the published report accurately reflects that data.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by ED_moots April 23, 10:59AM

Hi James

Thanks for your responses. Until the data can be shared please can you answer a specific query about the responses from Melbourne Grove North.

How many respondents who were for a CPZ came from the same address? I. E. How many distinct households are in favour?

I am assuming that most properties own one car so the perceived parking issues are singular per household. Therefore it would be unfair to give undue weight to, say, a family of 8, who want a CPZ versus a single occupier who doesn't.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by first mate April 23, 11:44AM

Thanks James for your responses,

You suggest that parking displacement caused by a CPZ for roads closest to the station could be mitigated by people choosing instead to stop using their cars in favour of public and other forms of transport. However, this seems unlikely if those closest to the station (including major bus route into town) have asked for CPZ so they can keep using their cars?

It has already been noted that perhaps those choosing to live close to a station might expect a little more pressure on parking- we all know people commute. Nonetheless, it would seem that these residents have found a way to park, albeit wih difficulty, or they would not be current car owners and asking for CPZ? Many of us have long accepted that it will not always be possible to park in our own street, let alone outside our house.

Finally, the general perception is that the council is placing as much pressure on parking as it lawfully can. One example is the contentious mass double yellow lines.

Why not simply admit that one way or another, however long it takes, the current administration is set on mass CPZ?

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Rockets April 23, 03:04PM

James,
Many thanks for your responses....I will take the slight typo in your response as a grammatical error rather than the mother of all Freudian slips!! winking smiley And I quote....

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.

But your response highlights the issue so many people have with the process and "result". Whether any particular street is in the CPZ or not, all the residents in your ward will be impacted by the CPZ. Those people who voted against it will have their streets blighted by the impact from the small number of streets that voted for it. There will be displacement and more parking pressure on those streets without the CPZ. So, the council's decision will impact everyone in East Dulwich and that's why many of us want our elected representatives to do more and represent the views of the majority and take a stand against it.

The concerns on the impact to Lordship Lane are real and being deliberately overlooked by the council. I know you are suggesting to reduce the number of roads having a CPZ but, to be fair, that's like asking someone if they want to be punched in the face by both fists or just one.....and the oldest political trick in the book winking smiley

I think it is imperative that the council realises the detailed results of the consultation to everyone so we can all see what the true picture is.

There is still an underlying concern that the council has railroaded these plans through against the will of the majority of people who will be impacted. And that the council has done everything in its power to get the result it wanted - I have yet to hear a response from the council on why the double-yellow lines were extended to the full legal limit months before the CPZ consultation was initiated. To most of us it just looks like an attempt to create parking pressure to help get people to vote for a CPZ.

8,000 people signed a petition in an attempt to save Lordship Lane and that has been given but lip service by the council. Add to those 8,000 the 68% who voted against the CPZ and there are a lot of disgruntled voters out there who feel local councillors are putting party politics ahead of the needs of their constituents. One can only presume you feel secure with your majority or you have been promised a plum job should you lose your seat in the next council elections........

BTW will you and the other councillors for the area be at the public meeting on the 27th?

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Mrs D April 23, 09:56PM

James, I couldn’t see anything in the interim report in regards to the proposed double yellow lines on the middle of Crystal Palace rd - we have managed very well without them for all these years so why are they needed? It reduces parking by at least 5 spaces and I think it may just mean that cars increase their speed if the road is wider.

And whilst I am at it - Why not focus on safety and sort out a crossing for kids crossing Whately or Underhill rd instead on their way to Heber or Harris? Current lollipop man is not allowed to help kids crossing there and it’s really not a safe crossing.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by tmcoleman April 24, 12:57PM

Hi James

I am in your GG ward but fall within the proposed Peckham West parking zone. You kindly emailed me back, sharing the PW consultation raw data for question 10 on times of operation. The questionnaire gave four choices:

- All day (for example 8.30am to 6.30pm)
- Part day (for example 10am to 2pm)
- Two hours during the day (e.g 11am to 1pm)
- Other (please specify)

I’m confused by the conclusion drawn by the Council and disappointed that the complete data has not been publicly shared so have cut and pasted your email below:

**************
The breakdown of responses is as follows:
- All day: 34%
- 12-2pm: 29%
- Part of the day: 13%
- Other: 17%
- Did not answer: 7%

Of those who answered ‘Other’, there was a mixture of responses including
- We do not want the parking zone
- None at all
- All day
- Two hours or part day

*************

My questions are:
1) Why have the combined responses for ‘part day’ and ‘Two hours during the day’ not been considered (as the Council did for the Denmark Hill CPZ!) and therefore a conclusion drawn that PW majority support ‘less than full day’?
2) Is richard.livingstone@southwark.gov.uk or Sunil.Chopra@southwark.gov.uk the correct person to direct emails to if want to challenge Council’s conclusion that majority support ‘all day’ Peckham West controls? Assume best to provide full name and address on any emails we send?
3) I see the previous Denmark Hill CPZ Report included the raw data with the recommendations. Please could you provide some rationale for the raw data having not been provided this time for both the ED and PW Reports?

Thank you

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Sporthuntor April 24, 02:53PM

Hi James, bit of a disappointing response.

My comment about being arrogantly detached from reality was in response to your view that people thought the council were doing a good job, not the CPZ. I choose to maintain that view.

My "you should be embarrassed" comment was in reference to those within the council responsible for running the CPZ consultation. I maintain that view as well.

The comment about "treating people as though they are stupid" I'm sorry about, as per my earlier post.

Let's move on, but you might rethink your future approach to responding to an apology!

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by andrewc April 24, 05:54PM

Who do I email with my objection to the scheme?

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by TE44 April 25, 09:46AM

Hi James, I am sorry if this has been asked before. I have not read all this thread. Can you tell me if Southwark council has seen any delay in social housing repairs, especially where there is no drivers in a household. I have been told private contractors would apply for a permit, I am just interested to know if this has affected
the repair service in any way. Would be interesting to hear from anyone in social housing within a CPZ. Thanks.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Abe_froeman April 25, 03:19PM

Hi James

Given you have already seemingly shared the full data with some people, please would you make it available publicly for all of your constituents.

There can be no data protection restriction if you have been able to share it already so there is no good reason why you should not publish it.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by jimlad48 April 25, 04:27PM

Someone asked about how many votes counted from same address. If memory serves, Southwark ignores multiple votes from the same address - only counting one reply from each address. Its not possible to 'stack the system' this way.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Jacqui5254 April 25, 05:37PM

So how does it work if there are conflicting views...if one or more vote is for, and one or more against?



jimlad48 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Someone asked about how many votes counted from
> same address. If memory serves, Southwark ignores
> multiple votes from the same address - only
> counting one reply from each address. Its not
> possible to 'stack the system' this way.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by MarkT April 25, 07:38PM

The report states on page 2 "More than one response per address was accepted but duplicates removed where the same name was used."

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Abe_froeman April 25, 07:55PM

Farcical

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by alice April 27, 01:14PM

Library CPZ meeting today at 2.30

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Eileen April 27, 01:48PM

alice Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Library CPZ meeting today at 2.30

If you are from Peckham West and want to join our work on this please come and give us your email address.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Rockets April 27, 09:07PM

Wandered down to the meeting today at the library and to say it was shambolic was an understatement. The council had massively under estimated the number of people who would want to attend and hear from them and ask questions. When I arrived the line snaked down the stairs from the meeting room, into the library and out towards the street. We were told that the room, which held 100 people was at capacity and that we could follow the meeting on the stream. Someone suggested that perhaps the meeting should be postponed and the council find a more suitable location for it given so many people wanted to voice their views.

There was much umming and ahhring and a lot of people left. After some time the council officials returned and suggested that they were postponing the non CPZ element of the meeting and they would run two concurrent meetings to accommodate the excessive numbers and present their CPZ findings and take questions. The majority of people suggested that the common sense approach was to postpone the meeting as they wanted to hear from all of the community that had attended, not have it split in two.

At this point someone from the library told everyone not in the meeting room to leave the library as it was a health and safety issue. So everyone decamped to the pavement outside the library. Everyone outside was told that there would be a separate meeting that would start about an hour later after the first CPZ meeting concluded. People pointed out that many had already left as they had been turned away and that postponing the meeting was the best course of action.

A councillor from West Dulwich came out and said that even though she agreed that the meeting should be postponed that it likely couldn’t be. She said she would recommend it to the chairman of the meeting.

The feeling of the majority of those stuck outside the meeting was that the council were, once again, treating the electorate with contempt.

Like many of those who attended for a 2.30pm start I could not stay for the 2nd meeting so I would be interested to know if any decision was taken on rescheduling the meeting or whether anyone has any info from either two of the meetings.

The feeling was that if the council could postpone the non CPZ discussion element of the meeting then they should have done it for the CPZ discussion. But, as someone quite rightly pointed out, the council probably has to have a “public meeting” as part of the process of implementing the CPZ so could not postpone it without impacting the start date for the CPZ.

The whole CPZ process has been flawed from the beginning and today again gives weight to those who think that the council doesn’t care about the views of the residents of East Dulwich. Today was another sad day, another nail in the coffin for the democratic process.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by ED_moots April 27, 09:14PM

wonderwoman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Re surgeries what time would that be?


7pm per James signature above.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Eileen April 27, 10:38PM

Rockets Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wandered down to the meeting today at the library
> and to say it was shambolic was an understatement.
> The council had massively under estimated the
> number of people who would want to attend and hear
> from them and ask questions. When I arrived the
> line snaked down the stairs from the meeting room,...
>
> Like many of those who attended for a 2.30pm start
> I could not stay for the 2nd meeting so I would be
> interested to know if any decision was taken on
> rescheduling the meeting or whether anyone has any
> info from either two of the meetings.

Hi Rockets - I have posted briefly on what happened later on the 'Peckham West' thread: [www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk] To add to that, the ward Councillors agreed to recommend that the CPZ should not apply south of East Dulwich Grove, and be for 2 hours a day, not all day, and that Ondine Rd and East Dulwich Rd be removed from the Peckham West area. No further Dulwich CC meetings. But we have a residents organised meeting next Saturday 4 May 2-4pm Amott Rd Baptist Church to cover the whole of the Peckham West area, which is the streets between the Peckham town centre CPZ and the main roads East Dulwich Rd, Grove Vale and the railway line. For further info on that please email me at info@peckhamvision.org

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Pugwash April 28, 05:27PM

Was going to attend meeting but got held up as assisting a neighbour with some DIY. Last time a meeting was held at the library with a 'routine agenda' you could hardly move. Should have held it at Christ Church.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by first mate April 29, 07:28AM

Thanks for that feedback Eileen and Pugwash. Does anyone know the track record of Cllr Livingstone following through on ward councillor recommendations for parking and CPZ related issues?

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by KidKruger April 29, 07:43AM

Rockets that sounds an awful (misrepresentation) mess, no way it could be a useful community event if it happened as described !

Goto Page: PreviousFirst...7891011121314151617...LastNext
Current Page: 12 of 18

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