Forum Sponsors

http://www.gardenia-gardens.com
xxxx
www.inshutters.co.uk

https://www.tutorfront.com

Advertise here

The East Dulwich Forum
Which pubs, bars, restaurants and take-aways do you avoid?
Goto Page: PreviousFirst...4567891011121314Next
Current Page: 13 of 14
messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by first mate April 29, 09:31AM

Agreed!

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by dresswaves April 29, 01:32PM

> I have posted briefly on what
> happened later on the 'Peckham West' thread:
> [www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk]?
> 5,2023271 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.

Thanks for the update Eileen. Do you know the reason for taking Ondine Road & East Dulwich Road out of Peckham West Area? Does that mean they will in no CPZ surrounded by the proposed Peckham West & East Dulwich CPZs, that really would not work!

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Eileen April 29, 11:58PM

dresswaves Wrote:
>
> Thanks for the update Eileen. Do you know the
> reason for taking Ondine Road & East Dulwich Road
> out of Peckham West Area? Does that mean they will
> in no CPZ surrounded by the proposed Peckham West
> & East Dulwich CPZs, that really would not work!

Hi - It was Cllr James McAsh who proposed the removal of Ondine Rd and East Dulwich Rd. Time was short by then and there was no discussion on this but hopefully James can explain here the reasoning in response to your question. I agree it raises new issues that need consideration. We will report this recommendation to the community meeting on Sat 4th May and see what also needs to be thought about and how it fits.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Abe_froeman April 30, 11:41AM

Hi James

Apologies if you have been busy but a week ago I asked where I might access the full dataset for the CPZ consultation.

It seems that you have been able to share it with posters on here and so would be grateful if you would confirm where it can be found?

Many thanks

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by intexasatthe moment May 01, 08:18PM

James - is there a mechanism for removing with dropped curbs where they are no longer in use ? With a CPZ these are lumped in with active dropped curbs and yellow lines across and beyond them reduce parking spaces .

See this thread [www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk]

for comments like these below
Re: Parking ticket for parking across a dropped kerb
Posted by Lynne April 28, 06:25PM

There's an old dropped kerb in our street that now has a brick wall built across where the cars used to go.It seems unfair that anyone could be penalised for parking there. I'm not talking here about the council's recent access dropped kerbs, just old redundant ones.

Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Reply via Private Message (PM)•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
messageRe: Parking ticket for parking across a dropped kerb
Posted by ed_pete April 28, 08:00PM

Same here and the council marked them with double yellows in the recent CPZ consultation pack.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by jamesmcash May 01, 11:30PM

Hi all

I am going to try to respond to a few of the specific queries on here before providing a more general update on the CPZ. I will come back to the queries about garden waste as soon as I can.

Abe_froeman
“I am pleased ... how well the published report accurately reflects that data.”
Thanks Abe_froeman, it’s great to hear that you have such total confidence in the council, despite not having had a chance to read the data yourself :P

I am afraid that I cannot share the full dataset. It will be published in a form that is compliant with the relevant legislation (see the Dog Kennel Hill CPZ repot for an example) but I am not sure exactly when. I can see why the post from ed_moots made you think that I have shared the dataset with others but I can assure you that all I shared there were the handful of percentages included in their post above. As far as I know, the only people with access to the full dataset are the councillors and council officers.

ED_moots
The consultation treats each individual separately, not each household. Regardless of how many vehicles a household owns, the members of the household may not agree on the issue.

Mrs D
I will respond to the general issue of DYL later but I just wanted to flag up that I am working with local schools on a crossing for Whately Road.

sporthuntor
I thought you were apologising for misreading, I did not realise you were also apologising for being rude. Apology accepted!

TE44
Great question! Let me find out.

Rockets
I am going to comment fully on the Dulwich Community Council meeting below but I just wanted to say that I agree with you that the way it was organised was far from satisfactory.

Best wishes
James

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

Surgeries: 2nd and 4th Thursdays of the month at 7pm, East Dulwich Community Centre on Darrell Road

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by jamesmcash May 01, 11:33PM

Dear all

Last Saturday was Dulwich Community Council. This is a council meeting open to all residents of Goose Green, Dulwich Hill, Dulwich Village and Dulwich Wood wards. On this occasion the main item on the agenda was the proposed controlled parking zones (CPZs) in East Dulwich and Peckham West.

It is fair to say that the council did not adequately prepare for the number of people who wanted to attend. The room was not big enough and there were insufficient chairs. It was clear that the vast majority of the attendees were there to discuss the CPZs, and not the other items on the agenda. Consequently, the Community Council Chair, Cllr Andy Simmons, took the decision to remove all other items from the agenda and to run the discussion about the CPZs twice back-to-back. This meant that as many people as possible were able to discuss this important issue. The first session started immediately and the second started shortly after the discussion had been originally scheduled to take place on the agenda.

We first heard from the council’s Acting Head of Highways, who provided an overview of what had happened so far and where the process will go next. He also answered some factual questions. Then there was a discussion from the floor, opened up with pre-agreed speeches from each side of the debate: the traders were represented, as were the pro-CPZ residents living near the station.

At the end of the discussion it was to the councillors to agree a recommendation from the Community Council to Cllr Richard Livingstone, who will ultimately make the final decision.

I made a number of proposals, which were then followed up by my fellow Goose Green Labour Councillor, Cllr Charlie Smith. All of these were agreed. I am going to first briefly summarise the process to-date, the outline the recommendations agreed by Dulwich Community Council, and finally explain the next steps of the process.

How we got here
Here’s a brief timeline
- Before I was elected last year and when I was a Labour candidate, I was frequently asked about controlled parking. Whether the person questioning me was for or against I always said the same thing: a CPZ should only be implemented if local residents want it.
- Over the summer discussion about a potential consultation began on here. I made it clear in September that the CPZ consultation was not all-or-nothing and that if it were supported in one section of the area but not in others then it could be implemented in just that section.
- This winter the consultation launched, and the key question asked residents if they want a CPZ on their road. It was not an all-or-nothing referendum on whether to implement a CPZ across the whole area, it was a consultation to identify whether or not there are streets which want one.
- In January I pledged on here, and with the support of the leader of the Council, Cllr Peter John, that there were three potential outcomes: full implementation across the consultation area, full rejection across the consultation area, or partial implementation in just a subsection of the consultation area where there is majority support.
- In April the interim reports of the consultations were released, each with a recommendation from officers for how to proceed.


Recommendation 1: Shrinking Area of the East Dulwich CPZ
The officer-proposed ‘Melbourne Grove area’ is consistent with my pledge above: there is a majority in this area for a CPZ. But when I looked at the map of responses it was clear to me that the support came from two sections: the area around the station and the area around the new health centre. At the south east of this area there are four roads which all intersect with Lordship Lane, and which taken together had a majority against the CPZ. These are Ashbourne, Chesterfield, Bassano and Blackwater.

From my experience of talking to people on Melbourne Grove I strongly suspected that there would be a stark difference in opinion between those at the northern end near the station and those at the southern end near Lordship Lane. When I asked for this data to be segmented into North and South, my views were confirmed and it turned out that there was a strong majority for a CPZ in the part of Melbourne Grove north of East Dulwich Grove, and a strong majority against in the part to the south.

Not only do these 4 and a half streets have a majority against a CPZ, they are also the streets which are most likely to be used by visitors to Lordship Lane (the streets coming off the other side of Lordship Lane were not even included in the officers’ proposal).

So given the lack of support for a CPZ on these roads, and the concerns raised by local traders, I proposed that Ashbourne,Chesterfield, Bassano, Blackwater and the southern section of Melbourne Grove be removed from the CPZ. Given that the CPZ would no longer cover much of Melbourne Grove I further suggested that the CPZ be renamed ‘East Dulwich Grove CPZ’

Bearing in mind that residents were asked whether they want a CPZ on their road, this proposal would mean that 75% of respondents will live under the outcome they want and 19% live will under the outcome they do not. It will also mean that the main streets used for parking

Recommendation 2: Shrinking Area of Peckham West CPZ
The principles above, if applied to Peckham West, led me to think that Ondine Road and East Dulwich Road should be excluded from the CPZ. They are on the edge fo the proposed area, together they have a majority against the CPZ, and they are near enough to Lordship Lane to be used by shoppers.

I have to say, I have received many fewer people contact me about this than did regarding the East Dulwich boundaries, so I suspect that it is not an issue which concerns people as much. Nonetheless, I thought it was important to apply the same principles consistently.

Recommendation 3: Peckham West times of operation
The officer proposal was for Peckham West to have an all day CPZ. As identified above by tmcoleman, the statistical justification for this is questionable.

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

The officer recommendation is that given that All Day is the most popular option, this should be proposed. However, I agree with tmcoleman that the people who responded either Part Day or 12-2 (42% altogether) would prefer some form of Part Day CPZ to an All Day CPZ. So, given this, I proposed that Dulwich Community Council recommend that the Peckham West CPZ is only from 12-2pm.

Other recommendations
The remaining recommendations came from Cllr Charlie Smith. They are quite specific and detail-focused but I think that they will make a big difference when it comes to implementing a CPZ. They are in response to a number of concerns raised with all of us:
- Request that officers minimise the lengths of double yellow lines across dropped kerbs and elsewhere in the design of the CPZ
- Request that officers review the cost of monthly permits and annual permits such that residents are not penalised for paying monthly
- Request that officers review the Whateley Road green screen to ensure that it does not impact on visibility at this critical junction
- Request that officers present a follow up monitoring report to Dulwich Community Council if the CPZs are implemented

Process from here
The above recommendations - from both Cllr Charlie Smith and me - were all approved unanimously.

However, Dulwich Community Council does not make the final decision on this issue. We have sent our recommendations onto Cllr Richard Livingstone who will make the final decision in the coming weeks. If he decides to implement one or more CPZs then that will lead to a further round of traffic management consultations. This is where the details of things like double yellow lines are worked out street by street. There will also be further opportunity to shape some of the specific details of the proposal.

As always, I am happy to answer any questions.

Best wishes
James

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

Surgeries: 2nd and 4th Thursdays of the month at 7pm, East Dulwich Community Centre on Darrell Road

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by ed_pete May 02, 10:45AM

James - for some reason you have emphasised that residents were asked if they want a CPZ on their road as if this is the way the CPZ will be implemented. It seems to me that you are making this point to deflect from the fact that overall, in the consultation area the majority of residents voted against the CPZ a significant point which you choose not to mention at all in your summary.

However as we know, your recommendation is not on a street-by-street basis, it is based on a selective area where you have managed to find a majority in favour.

Your area includes the streets to the west of the East Dulwich Grove junction with Melbourne Grove, near the new Charter School and Health Centre. According to the consultation the results for these streets are as follows:

East Dulwich Grove - against
Glengarry Road - undecided
Trossachs Road - for
Tarbert Road - for
Thorncombe Road - undecided
Hillsborough Road - against
East Dulwich Estate - 2 for, 4 against, 2 undecided, 2 no response.

So in total we have 4 for, 6 against and 4 undecided. Hardly a majority.

Within the East Dulwich Estate, on the side closest to the railway, there is a large area for residents parking between the estate and the railway line fence. I walk through here regularly and there are always parking spaces available.

So, were we to discount the responses from those streets within the East Dulwich Estate on the railway line side where here is adequate free parking provision, then we have 2 for, 6 against and 4 undecided.

How, on that basis is that representing the residents desire for a CPZ ?

Furthermore, how can you exclude Melbourne Grove South – part of which is closer to the new Health Centre than the above streets - and include those above ? Surely visitors Health Centre visitors will soon realise that they can park for free there and you will suffer the classic displacement ?

I look forward to your response.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Rockets May 02, 12:16PM

James,
The meeting was beyond shambolic and it should have been postponed and rescheduled to a date when the council could provide an adequately sized venue that was suitable for task.

When the news was first broken to us that the room was full someone immediately suggested that the meeting should be rescheduled. We were told that we could only watch the meeting on the webstream and so a large number of those waiting to get in left. Those who stayed were then unceremoniously pushed onto the pavement outside the library whilst the council decided what to do. More people left.

It was clear that whilst the council was happy to postpone the non-CPZ elements of the agenda there was a huge reluctance on their part to do the same with the CPZ discussion (even though the councillor for Dulwich West came out and said she agreed it should be postponed and would make the recommendation to the chair - did she and was this minuted?). This led many to believe that without that meeting having been completed the council could not implement the CPZ so it pushed forward with the meeting as a box ticking exercise.

The community was not afforded the opportunity to address the council enmasse and many, myself included, were unable to attend the meeting and hear from the council or be heard on a matter of huge importance to the area due to the council's own failings. That is not how these things are supposed to work and demonstrates, yet again, the contempt with which this council views its residents and the councillors their constituents.

Now, to your second note:

Your comment on 75% of residents living under the outcome they want - firstly, I would temper your use of stats before someone accuses you of being sinister or likening you to the mouthpiece of a terrorist organisation winking smiley -secondly, the CPZ will impact 100% of your constituents and the people in the local area.

The majority of residents do not want a CPZ yet are going to be forced to live with the affects of one. You may have cleverly worded your questionnaire to focus on a single roads but we all know the impact of a CPZ goes beyond a single road. One, ahem, wonders why you didn't pose the question in the consultation about whether residents would like a CPZ in the area at all or whether any had any concerns about the impact on the community.....

Unfortunately, through every step of this process the council has shown its true colours and has steamrolled something on the community that the majority do not want.

The motivation is not the good of the community but to swell the £15m annual revenue and £6m surplus the council makes from parking permits, pay and display and PCNs and your constituents are the victims of this. And that surplus goes on road maintenance but just what did the council spend £5.8m on road maintenance on last year and why has that increased from £1.7m in 2011/12?

I see the thread on this topic has been mysteriously lounged so for any of you that want to read the stats the report is here (page 38 deals with budget)


[www.southwark.gov.uk]

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by dresswaves May 02, 07:47PM

jamesmcash Wrote
>
> Recommendation 2: Shrinking Area of Peckham West
> CPZ
> The principles above, if applied to Peckham West,
> led me to think that Ondine Road and East Dulwich
> Road should be excluded from the CPZ. They are on
> the edge fo the proposed area, together they have
> a majority against the CPZ, and they are near
> enough to Lordship Lane to be used by shoppers.
>
> I have to say, I have received many fewer people
> contact me about this than did regarding the East
> Dulwich boundaries, so I suspect that it is not an
> issue which concerns people as much. Nonetheless,
> I thought it was important to apply the same
> principles consistently.


>
> As always, I am happy to answer any questions.
>
> Best wishes
> James

Okay, all very well to apply the principles consistently but what about practicality. Where are car owners of Ondine Road & East Dulwich Road expected to park when their roads are filled with cars from Lordship Lane shoppers?

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by worldwiser May 02, 08:11PM

James, this vote was done on a community basis. The result should stand in the spirit of that exercise, as a community. I don't believe anyone can possibly have concluded during this referendum that results would be eventually be divided up street by street. You and the council are twisting an apparently open, transparent process into a total sham.

Why go to the trouble of creating two separate areas and two separate votes if they didn't, ultimately, mean anything? We exist as a community, not as one street pitched against the next. You will create huge resentment in this area and you will bear the consequences of it.

This isn't Brexit. It's abundantly clear what the people voted for. It's utterly extraordinary to me that we're having to fight to get it.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by eastdulwichlocal99 May 02, 10:48PM

James

I’m sorry but since when did Melbourne Grove become two separate roads? There is no Melbourne Grove North and South, it is one road and under the logic for going on a road by road basis you should consider Melbourne Grove as one road. Residents on the southern part have exactly the same concerns of those in the northern part.

Secondly where on the consultation did it say that votes would be considered on a road by road basis and that if the northern section of Melbourne Grove was in a CPZ then how would you vote if you lived in a adjoining road?

You are making this up as you go along and it is unfair and will cause chaos. The principal concern of most residents is that of rail commuters using the area for parking and this can be easily resolved with a short CPZ whilst not being to the detriment of local trade.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by first mate May 03, 07:25AM

Eastdulwich99 I believe these questions were asked.

As others have said, the questionnaire was designed in such a way as to maximise opportunity for the Council to justify introduction of CPZ, if only on a few streets. In short, it was designed to make CPZ happen! James further flagged that contiguous streets were yet another way the council could broaden the CPZ, even streets with a clear majority against CPZ.

The council desperately needed just a few streetsi favour to get CPZ started. Once underway it is very likely that parking displacement over time, together with all the Council's other endeavours to increase pressure on parking, will result in an eventual spread of CPZ- which is the plan.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by KidKruger May 03, 08:06AM

Well said, Rocket.
The people in the community are just resources to be milked by the council, CPZ is a planned revenue earner and manipulation (of approach, of statistics, of conclusion) is the method by which the council intend to enforce it.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by intexasatthe moment May 03, 09:02AM

James - if there are dropped kerbs that are redundant (eg wall built ) is there a mechanism for removing their dropped kerb designation ? So that they don't get included in the planned double yellow lines over ( and beyond ) them .

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by TheArtfulDogger May 03, 11:17AM

James

Can you comment on the transport planning policy being signed off with a borough wide CPZ mentioned which occurred before the community council meeting

Were you aware of this change in policy ?
How does it effect your recommendations ?
Will it over ride the consultations on CPZs that have just occurred?

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by dougiefreeman May 03, 01:08PM

Dear James

The fact that certain streets might be in favour of a CPZ due to their proximity to the station is kind of irrelevant. Whilst I empathise that it can be frustrating not being able to park outside your house (or in some cases having to park on another street altogether - I have experienced this regularly in all three parts of the area I have lived in recent years) residents simply do not have any ownership of the road outside their property. Nothing has changed, that would have been the case when they purchased their property - the roads are for the general use of all council tax paying citizens.
If you want to guarantee a parking space, move further out of town where you can afford a drive way. I love East Dulwich but I can not afford a home with a drive way - therefore I have to accept that parking my car may not always be easy. That is a sacrifice I make to live in this area.

We all, as residents of East Dulwich, collectively pay for the roads and any action taken to implement a CPZ (however small the area may become) will affect ALL residents in one way or another. As such the council SHOULD be acting with the overwhelming majority AGAINST implementing the CPZ.


Aside from mounting a legal case against the council, are there any other official means of appealing or fighting the decision to ignore the overwhelming majority and implementing the CPZ (in any form) anyway?

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by jamesmcash May 04, 11:11PM

Hi all

I hope you are all enjoying your bank holiday weekend. Let me try to answer some of the questions on here.

Ed_pete - I emphasised that the consultation asked people if they wanted a CPZ on their road because there is some misinformation being circulated to say that 68% of people in East Dulwich do not want a CPZ in East Dulwich. We do not know how many people in East Dulwich want a CPZ on Derwent Grove (for example) because only the people on Derwent Grove were asked this. I suspect that the majority of people on streets like Heber Road (for example) have no strong feeling on this subject, despite being quite opposed to there being a CPZ on their own road. However, what we do know is that the majority of people on Derwent Grove do want a CPZ on Derwent Grove. And the majority of people in the area I have proposed above want a CPZ on their road too.

The proposed area is not based on a count of roads for and against, it is based on the total number of respondents for and against, balanced with the need to design boundaries which make sense. The area I have proposed above does this.

Rockets - I agree that the meeting was not well organised in advance. However, once it was clear that there were too many people to fit there were three options:
1) Cancel the meeting entirely - leaving residents with no opportunity to discuss the matter
2) Postpone it to a future date - which would have meant that the many people who had turned up would needlessly lose their opportunity to contribute there
3) Organise the two sessions back-to-back - which would mean that everyone who had come to the meeting expecting the CPZ to be discussed at the pre-advertised time would have opportunity to do so.

The Chair took the 3rd option, which I think was the best one available to us. This had nothing to do with any requirement for the Council to have the meeting before a decision is taken - the council’s constitution has no such requirement so a decision could have been taken on the CPZ even if the meeting was cancelled (I would not have supported this option).

“The motivation is not the good of the community but to swell the £15m annual revenue and £6m surplus the council makes from parking permits, pay and display and PCNs and your constituents are the victims of this”

- There are plenty of people who want a CPZ in their area (predominantly in the area where I argue there should be one). They are not stooges of the council or under-cover council officers. They are expressing genuine concerns which the council is trying to address.
- It is illegal for the council to introduce a CPZ to raise revenue.
- Any revenue that the council does raise goes straight back into public services anyway, it’s not as if it’s syphoned into the bank account of billionaires in the Cayman Islands.

You may disagree with the conclusions I have reached but I cannot see what evidence you have that I am not acting with the best interests of the community at heart.

intexasatthe moment
”James - if there are dropped kerbs that are redundant (eg wall built ) is there a mechanism for removing their dropped kerb designation ? So that they don't get included in the planned double yellow lines over ( and beyond ) them .”
Great question! I am afraid I do not know but I will find out for you and get back to you as soon as I can.

TheArtfulDogger
I am going to look into why this is mentioned in this document because it is the first I have heard of such a decision being taken, which makes me think it is a mistake.

dougiefreeman
Thanks for your comments. I do understand your perspective. The final decision will be taken by Cabinet Member Cllr Richard Livingstone so it is worth contacting him directly with your views: Richard.Livingstone@southwark.gov.uk

Best wishes
James

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

Surgeries: 2nd and 4th Thursdays of the month at 7pm, East Dulwich Community Centre on Darrell Road

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by MarkT May 06, 02:38PM

James,

“• To enable us to better manage limited space, we will introduce more Controlled Parking Zones with the aim of covering the whole borough by 2025.”

Southwark’s Local Implementation Plan LIP 3 2018
[consultations.southwark.gov.uk]

MarkT

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by ed_pete May 06, 03:31PM

James, you say that “the majority of people in the area I have proposed above want a CPZ on their road too.”
The information on how many voted in favour or against from each street is not available in the consultation report so is it something only available to a select few ? Why has it not been publicly disseminated ? Are you making recommendations based on information that isn’t in the public domain ?

Did the majority of people in the Glengarry/Tarbert/Thorncome/Trossachs/Hillsborough/ East Dulwich Grove and East Dulwich Grove Estate vote in favour of the CPZ ? What are the numbers ? For those that live in the East Dulwich Grove Estate, on which road were they voting for the CPZ to be created, as their streets are pedestrianised.

You say that your proposal has "boundaries which make sense." Make sense to whom exactly and on what basis ?
You have already divided one road into two - Melbourne Grove and excluded the part (South) that is both closer to the Station and the School and Health Centre than other roads that are included.

You are also no doubt aware that 2 hour operation times doesn't deter commuters. They simply set an alarm on their phones for the time the 2 hour window starts and pay by text from work. This happens all the time in Herne Hill/North Dulwich where there is a CPZ.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by first mate May 06, 07:00PM

Cllr McAsh wrote
Ed_pete -" I emphasised that the consultation asked people if they wanted a CPZ on their road because there is some misinformation being circulated to say that 68% of people in East Dulwich do not want a CPZ in East Dulwich. We do not know how many people in East Dulwich want a CPZ on Derwent Grove (for example) because only the people on Derwent Grove were asked this. I suspect that the majority of people on streets like Heber Road (for example) have no strong feeling on this subject, despite being quite opposed to there being a CPZ on their own road. However, what we do know is that the majority of people on Derwent Grove do want a CPZ on Derwent Grove. And the majority of people in the area I have proposed above want a CPZ on their road too."

In general, if a resident does not want controlled parking in their own street it is unlikely they will want CPZ anywhere close because of the risk of displacement. Southwark Council know this and it is precisely the reason why we were not asked about CPZ for the whole area but on a street by street basis, because the answer would have been a resounding 'no thanks', just as it was at the last CPZ consultation- which was not so long ago. So unlike Cllr McAsh, I suspect residents on Heber Road may be very interested in CPZ on other roads in ED, just as the majority of residents who participated in the consultation probably are.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was may 06, 07:02pm by first mate.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by roywj May 06, 08:09PM

first mate Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cllr McAsh wrote
> Ed_pete -" I emphasised that the consultation
> asked people if they wanted a CPZ on their road
> because there is some misinformation being
> circulated to say that 68% of people in East
> Dulwich do not want a CPZ in East Dulwich. We do
> not know how many people in East Dulwich want a
> CPZ on Derwent Grove (for example) because only
> the people on Derwent Grove were asked this. I
> suspect that the majority of people on streets
> like Heber Road (for example) have no strong
> feeling on this subject, despite being quite
> opposed to there being a CPZ on their own road.
> However, what we do know is that the majority of
> people on Derwent Grove do want a CPZ on Derwent
> Grove. And the majority of people in the area I
> have proposed above want a CPZ on their road too."
>
>
> In general, if a resident does not want controlled
> parking in their own street it is unlikely they
> will want CPZ anywhere close because of the risk
> of displacement. Southwark Council know this and
> it is precisely the reason why we were not asked
> about CPZ for the whole area but on a street by
> street basis, because the answer would have been a
> resounding 'no thanks', just as it was at the last
> CPZ consultation- which was not so long ago. So
> unlike Cllr McAsh, I suspect residents on Heber
> Road may be very interested in CPZ on other roads
> in ED, just as the majority of residents who
> participated in the consultation probably are.

The last CPZ consultation you are referring to (2012) covered a much smaller area around Grove Vale. I live in one of the roads which supported this current CPZ proposal and we were not involved in the previous consultation you have mentioned. To be clear this is the first CPZ consultation we have had the opportunity to vote for.

Accept the result that a number of streets around East Dulwich Station, Charter School East and Dulwich Hospital support a CPZ. The Cllr was very clear from the start that is was not an all or nothing approach. I do not understand why a person living outside of the CPZ area would want to impose their will on the people living within it?

Today I have noticed how clear the streets are around where I live and I look forward to the CPZ being implemented.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by worldwiser May 06, 08:33PM

Our street is also clear today when it's usually choked. We will be one street outside the new proposed zone and, along with the dozen surrounding streets I usually try to park on, we will no doubt be the recipient of all your unwanted cars.

Why should we be made to suffer this additional burden simply to enable half of ED to get what it wants? Even if we're not living in that zone, why can't we have a permit to park in your streets? It's the most utterly utterly selfish, anti-community direction this issue could take and unspeakably unfair.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by roywj May 06, 08:36PM

worldwiser Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Our street is also clear today when it's usually
> choked. We will be one street outside the new
> proposed zone and, along with the dozen
> surrounding streets I usually try to park on, we
> will no doubt be the recipient of all your
> unwanted cars.
>
> Why should we be made to suffer this additional
> burden simply to enable half of ED to get what it
> wants? Even if we're not living in that zone, why
> can't we have a permit to park in your streets?
> It's the most utterly utterly selfish,
> anti-community direction this issue could take and
> unspeakably unfair.

Why should my street remain congested to keep yours clear? If you or your neighbours did not vote for the CPZ then you need to accept the result.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Penguin68 May 06, 08:46PM

And so, Southwark council, your job is done, you have turned street against street, each now selfishly to demand their own parking and then, lo, finding the spaces available to park are severely truncated and lost forever, to everyone, through your imposition of double yellows.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by worldwiser May 06, 09:18PM

roywj - I'm not sure you actually read my post properly. I said our street (and by implication) our surrounding streets are already full to bursting, just as yours are. Both our streets are equally blighted and you come dangerously close to implying the street outside your house is owned anymore by you than it is by me.

The difference being that you on the apparently rarified west side now get calmer streets at the same time that we'll forced to ensure untold misery. You really shouldn't assume which way I voted: whether voting for or against, everyone on our side of LL loses as as result of this. The status quo was perhaps tolerable chaos and one forms a view based on that. What now results is completely intolerable mayhem.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by roywj May 06, 10:16PM

The difference is that the majority on my street voted for a CPZ and the majority on yours voted against one.


The current situation is not tolerable and getting worse where I live with the new school, existing schools closing car parks, sixth formers driving to school, commuters including the train station users, Health centre and long term parking. I do sympathise but the vote needs to be accepted.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Passiflora May 06, 11:51PM

ed_pete Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> James, you say that “the majority of people in the
> area I have proposed above want a CPZ on their
> road too.”
> The information on how many voted in favour or
> against from each street is not available in the
> consultation report so is it something only
> available to a select few ? Why has it not been
> publicly disseminated ? Are you making
> recommendations based on information that isn’t in
> the public domain ?
>
> Did the majority of people in the
> Glengarry/Tarbert/Thorncome/Trossachs/Hillsborough
> / East Dulwich Grove and East Dulwich Grove Estate
> vote in favour of the CPZ ? What are the numbers
> ? For those that live in the East Dulwich Grove
> Estate, on which road were they voting for the CPZ
> to be created, as their streets are
> pedestrianised.
>
> You say that your proposal has "boundaries which
> make sense." Make sense to whom exactly and on
> what basis ?
> You have already divided one road into two -
> Melbourne Grove and excluded the part (South) that
> is both closer to the Station and the School and
> Health Centre than other roads that are included.
>
> You are also no doubt aware that 2 hour operation
> times doesn't deter commuters. They simply set an
> alarm on their phones for the time the 2 hour
> window starts and pay by text from work. This
> happens all the time in Herne Hill/North Dulwich
> where there is a CPZ.


It does deter commuters. I live in the Herne Hill/North Dulwich CPZ and since we've had a CPZ introduced in April 2016 we can park in our own street after having terrible parking problems due to Lambeth introducing a CPZ near Ruskin Park.


There are a few pay points to park but they never seem used. To park between 12-2pm in the Denmark Hill/Herne Hill/North Dulwich area you either need to pay for a yearly permit or to issue a visitor permit to somebody parking in the area.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Abe_froeman May 07, 10:22AM

I don't understand how commuters can possibly be a problem unless you yourself are using your car to drive to and from somewhere during rush hour every day.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help? CPZ update and next steps
Posted by Rockets May 07, 02:59PM

James,
Thank you for replying.

To address some of the points you raised:
"I emphasised that the consultation asked people if they wanted a CPZ on their road because there is some misinformation being circulated to say that 68% of people in East Dulwich do not want a CPZ in East Dulwich."

Firstly, I was interested to read the park car park consultation online response mechanism that allowed the respondent to "oppose the plans in their entirety". Interesting that such a response was not given for the CPZ consultation - why was that?

Why are you pushing the narrative that there is misinformation circulating when your own colleague Charlie Smith says in the SE22 magazine that "the overall response said that 69% of people were against it"?.


"- The Chair took the 3rd option, which I think was the best one available to us. This had nothing to do with any requirement for the Council to have the meeting before a decision is taken - the council’s constitution has no such requirement so a decision could have been taken on the CPZ even if the meeting was cancelled (I would not have supported this option)."

This might have benefited the council but it didn't benefit the members of the community, from both sides, who showed up to have their say and were denied that opportunity.


"- There are plenty of people who want a CPZ in their area (predominantly in the area where I argue there should be one). They are not stooges of the council or under-cover council officers. They are expressing genuine concerns which the council is trying to address."

No-one has suggested they are stooges for the council but the point many of us are raising and you, and those in favour of the CPZ, repeatedly fail to address or acknowledge is the negative impact this implementation will have on the broader community. We would all love to be able to park directly outside our houses but many are sanguine enough to realise that to do so close to Lordship Lane could well kill Lordship Lane as we know it. Why do you only ever pay lip service to these concerns - is it that you really don't care what happens to the thriving Lane community?

"- It is illegal for the council to introduce a CPZ to raise revenue."

As you keep stating but the facts speak for themselves - the council makes a huge amount of revenue from parking (£6m profit annually and counting) so you're hardly being dis-incentivised from rolling them out are you?

And you didn't answer my question on what the council is re-investing that money in - just what did the council spend £5.8m on road maintenance on last year and why has that increased from £1.7m in 2011/12?

And just for the benefit of reference from what I can tell Lambeth spent about £2m on road maintenance in 2017/2018.

- Any revenue that the council does raise goes straight back into public services anyway, it’s not as if it’s syphoned into the bank account of billionaires in the Cayman Islands.

You are a bit obsessed with billionaires in the Cayman Islands...winking smiley I don't think anyone has suggested that is where the money ends-up and your repeated use of that phrase suggests you believe that because the money goes back into public services we should just all just smile, get on with it and pay it. I know the council thinks that those lucky enough to live around Lordship lane must be rolling in cash but we can all see the trends emerging here (CPZs, brown bin tax, green space car park charges).

- You may disagree with the conclusions I have reached but I cannot see what evidence you have that I am not acting with the best interests of the community at heart.

I really don't think you are acting in the best interests of the community at large. My personal feeling is that you are using the small number of roads around the station to impose a party-political agenda to see CPZs in East Dulwich, knowing full well that those roads will force parking issues into other areas and thus greasing the wheels to get more CPZs across the area. Given the spanking the two main political parties got in the recent local elections one would hope that local councillors would be mindful of keeping the majority of their electorate happy and you must be thanking your lucky stars the elections did not take in place London.

It has been clear from the outset that the council manipulated the situation to create parking pressure (extension of double-yellow lines in only the CPZ consultation area before the consultation started), manipulated the consultation process to guarantee delivery of a CPZ and ultimately care not one jot for the vibrancy of Lordship lane or the views of the majority who live there. It will be interesting to see how the electorate reacts at the next local elections.

Goto Page: PreviousFirst...4567891011121314Next
Current Page: 13 of 14

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