I hope you are all well and enjoying the sunshine. I will try to respond to your comments and questions.
The double yellow lines on the CPZ consultation pack are subject to further statutory consultation - even on the minority of streets where there will be a CPZ at all.
I am happy to look at removing a dropped kerb if it is no longer needed but I would need to do this on a case-by-case basis. Please email me with specifics: your name and address, the location of the dropped kerb, why it should be removed.
MarkT and TheArtfullDogger
Thanks for raising this with me. I have looked it into and am still confused by the reference in this document. Cllr Livingstone is looking into it further but assures me that nothing borough-wide is currently planned. Looking at trends across London and other major cities, it is believed that demand for controls will increase over the coming decades but that is not consistent with the 2025 date you quoted. I will find out more and let you know.
Yes our recommendations are based on a fuller set of information than is currently available publicly. This is due to data protection concerns.
"boundaried which make sense" - i.e you cannot have a road with unrestricted parking surrounded by roads which do not, and if boundaries coincide with major roads this is easier for drivers to understand/remember.
The people of East Dulwich are very reasonable. Lots of them do not want a CPZ - and most will not get one - but they understand that the parking pressures are different in different places. The vast majority of people who I've spoken to at the Heber Road end of East Dulwich accept that if people living around the station want controlled parking then they should get it, so long as they do not have to have it on their street too!
Cllr Livingstone is due to make his decision next month.
I will try my best to respond to as many as possible of your points here!
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?
The CPZ consultation unapologetically prioritises the views of those living on a given street. No one lives in the parks so there is no relevant comparison here.
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 were two discussion about the CPZ. One started at the beginning of the meeting when there were evidently many people there. The second began shortly after the CPZ item's start time had been advertised. So anyone who had attended the meeting with the intention of discussing the CPZ had the opportunity to do so. I totally agree that elements of the meeting were poorly organised and it is regrettable that some residents had to wait befor being able to join the meeting but it is not the case that people were denied the opportunity to discuss the proposals.
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.
Please note that my proposed area would mean no change to parking on the bulk of streets used by Lordship Lane's customers.
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 why has that increased from £1.7m in 2011/12?
In the early days of Tory-LibDem austerity the council made big cuts to road maintenance. Within a few years it became clear that this was a false economy: the roads were deteriorating and more remedial work was needed. As a result the policy switched to programming more planned improvements. The roads are now much better.
Also, I think the figures you have quoted there might be gross figures which also include investment in cycling infrastructure. This often comes from external sources (TfL etc).
I really don't think you are acting in the best interests of the community at large.
I 100% agree with you that public services should be provided free at the point of use, and funded through progressive taxation. Under a future Labour Government, I hope that the brutal cuts to local government under Tory and Tory-LibDem austerity are reversed. Sadly, at the moment, Southwark Council has only 50% of the central government grant it had ten years ago. This leaves the council with only two options: raise revenue, or make cuts.
With two thirds of the council budget spent on children and adults social care, it is very hard to do this without affecting the most vulnerable people in the borough. So while I wish that the garden waste charge was not being implemented, I believe it is the least-bad option available.
In terms of environmental effects the council expects that the positive effects (e.g. more composting) will outweigh the negatives, but this will be monitored going forward. I will look into getting the environmental impact analysis.
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