Forum Sponsors

https://georgemonkhouse.com
xxxx
http://www.gardenia-gardens.com

Francis Stone – Independent Mortgage Brokers

Advertise here

The East Dulwich Forum
The Bishop, The EDT, The Great Exhibition, the Actress or another?
Goto Page: Previous123456789Next
Current Page: 7 of 9
messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by Rockets January 26, 04:56PM

James,
What are your thoughts on the CPZ discussion that has been ongoing for some time now on this forum and throughout your ward. Your ward is the one most directly impacted and the whole consultation process seems to be utterly chaotic and geared towards justifying a decision that has already been made. Today, for example, I spoke to a shop owner that had not received any of the consultation documents nor did they know that there had been a meeting for shop owners earlier this week. I told him about the drop in session today and he was going to make his way there. It appears not everyones voice is being heard.

It seems there has not been the proper due diligence given to this project, the consultation documents are full of inaccurate and misleading claims that have no bearing on reality and many are concerned that the council is trying (again) to railroad plans through that do not properly address the unique nature of Lordship Lane and that these plans will ultimately damage the uniqueness of the area we all call home.

There is a lot of local opposition to these plans - the long lists of signatures in most shops along the Lane attest to this - and the fear is that the council will just power ahead with a plan that seems motivated purely by revenue generation.

What is your position?

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank youattachment
Posted by Zak January 27, 03:08PM

Hi James,

Reading the previous post prompts me to ask you some questions about how the current opaque consultation and decision making process which is being carried out, in contrast to the previous democratic East Dulwich CPZ Consultation in 2011/12

Judging by what appears in the consultation documentation, the decision making process which Southwark are adopting, following the end of the consultation, is barely, if at all,open to public scrutiny:
- The Officers analyse the consultation results
- They present a internal report to the responsible Cabinet Member - Richard Livingstone - with their recommendations and
- The cabinet member makes a decision about what should happen in terms of proceeding with the CPZ.

Compare this with what happened last time, in 2011/12, when Southwark carried a CPZ consultation in East Dulwich:
- The officers analysed the results
- They produced a report which was a public document (see attached), for everyone to see and discuss &
- The results in the report were formally discussed and debated at the relevant Community Council meetings with councillors before any decision was taken.

Councillor Peter John even wrote a letter pledging not to implement a CPZ unless there was a majority in favour of it (see attached).

There wasn't a majority in 2011/2 and the CPZ wasn't implemented.

In view of this departure from a democratic decision making process:

- Can you tell us, why a similarly transparent/democratic decision making process has not been adopted this time?

- Will you undertake to raise the matter with the Leader ( Peter John) and press for the results of the consultation to be made public and properly discussed through the relevant Community Councils before, any decisions about implementing CPZs are made?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was january 27, 03:23pm by Zak.

Attachments: Letter from Peter John to residents re. CPZ Cons.jpg (375.2KB)   CPZ Officers Report 10.1.2012.pdf (73.1KB)  
messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by The Nappy Lady January 27, 03:24PM

James,

At the local business meeting with the council last Tuesday re the CPZ consultation I raised a question as to why the business vehicle permit rate is five times more expensive than a residents parking permit & was told that this rate is set by central government.

After further investigation I am led to understand that whilst that answe was true, what we were NOT told is that this is the MAXIMUM amount that can be charged and that every council has the ability to reduce that rate as they see fit.

Given that Southwark council claims that it wishes to work with local businesses, and to support them I would like you to explain the rationale behind the business permits being so much more expensive than the residents permits. As the cost of the permits is (we are told) intended to cover the cost of implementing and running the CPZ, with any surplus being used only for road repairs etc it seems to me that the amount the council would be making, if all permits were equal at 125 per vehicle would be more than enough with many thousands to spare.Why are local businesses who bring revenue and employment to the area being penalised?

Please speak to whoever you need to in order to be able to clarify this and if need be to explain why the cost of the business permits cannot be reduced.

Thank you.

--------------------
Molly

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by Wil72 January 28, 08:56AM

Hi James,

As per the current thread on the Forum regarding the Proposed CPZ in East Dulwich,

Please can you explain how you are getting involved as you will see that the residents have strong suspicions that Southwark Council are going to push this through regardless of what the residents of East Dulwich actually want.

There was a shambolic 'drop in' meting on Saturday that you and your colleagues should have been at.

Why weren't you?

These hugely important decisions should be monitored and held to account by someone unbiased, not left to the Council to push through to create parking revenue.

Please get involved asap and tell us what you are all doing? on that thread!!

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by cella January 28, 10:43AM

Edited



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was january 28, 10:46am by cella.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by Abe_froeman January 28, 10:50AM

Labour councillors aren't going to be interested in stopping a proposal that taxes rich middle class car owners and capitalist business people.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by singalto January 28, 11:08AM

Wil72, I absolutely agree with you.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by TheArtfulDogger January 28, 12:39PM

James

Based on abe_froemans point in the CPZ discussion, concerning the proposed spineway along crystal palace road, what are the councillors (who we, the public, elected to represent us) going to do about it being pushed through despite huge objections ?

Or are you just going to roll over and not represent us?

Start of Quote

"On the point about whether or not Southwark will actually listen to the outcome of the consultation, this may be instructive. It's another project in East Dulwich that will result in the loss of a large number of car parking spaces...

"You Said
We received 463 responses: 28% were 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied', 63% were 'dissatisfied' or 'very dissatisfied'.
..."

The scheme is going ahead as planned. That's what we are dealing with here.


[consultations.southwark.gov.uk]


End of quote

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by tiddles January 29, 10:02AM

Is it me or is there a deafening silence......

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by Hemingway January 29, 10:14AM

I've emailed them, heard nothing.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by MarkT January 29, 11:07AM

James,
concerning the proposed CPZs, you made the following statement on this Forum a while ago:
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.

Your statement has been quoted, as authoritative, at least twice in postings on this forum, but the evidence that previous CPZ Decisions were indeed all or nothing leads some of us to doubt that this one will indeed be any different.

James, can confirm/clarify whether sub sections of the proposed CPZ might be excluded on a popular vote?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was january 29, 11:12am by MarkT.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by singalto January 29, 12:24PM

Can you imagine the chaos if some streets have a CPZ and others dont?

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by Abe_froeman January 29, 12:32PM

He's been quite busy online, just not on here.

[twitter.com]

Maybe he needs some time to think about the issue.

I wonder if our other councillors have expressed a view...

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by Hemingway January 29, 01:42PM

well, his last activity was today so he's definitely logged on and I suspect looked at this thread....let's see how much of a democratic socialists he is. Our local councillors, not just James, really need to not just ignore their constituents.

Get Fit with GokaySponsored link
messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by Abe_froeman January 29, 02:10PM

He's not a democratic socialist, he is a Marxist - it says so on his twitter profile.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by first mate January 29, 04:33PM

Still no response from James?

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by TheArtfulDogger January 29, 05:01PM

Tonight there is the Dulwich community council meeting

Tuesday 29 January 2019 at St John the Evangelist Church, 62A East Dulwich Road, London SE22 9AT.

It may be a good idea to raise questions there about

A) the CPZ proposal and what happens if the public reject it
B) why the quiet way is being implemented despite overwhelming objections
C) what is happening along Barry Road and what the results of the recent consultation are

Sadly I can't be there to ask these questions, but I believe that the local councillors need to answer these questions, and be accountable if they aren't representing their electorate

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by Hemingway January 29, 05:35PM

Well. I hope James Barber is standing again becuase I'll be voting for people who engage with their local constituents whatever party they belong to, and he used to be present and engage, including with criticism. Momentum Marxists obviously far too busy fighting the class war to speak to the voters that they represent

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by jamesmcash January 29, 06:59PM

Dear all

Thanks a lot for everyone's messages on here. I know that this is a hugely contentious issue for which lots of people have strong views. I'm going to try to provide answer all your questions below.

*Why is there a consultation*
The council has a policy of consulting on the introduction of a CPZ if residents call for one. There have been sections of the Goose Green area which have been very active in calling for this for some time. During the election campaign last year parking was the most commonly-raised local issue. Clearly, with no CPZ in place and no consultation ongoing the people raising it were almost universally those who supported the implentation of one. Although I am reltaively new to this post, I am told that this is the standard pattern: we councillors hear mostly from those who support a CPZ until a consultation happens, at which point we hear more from its opponents. This makes sense to me and it's why it's important to have a meaningful consultation.

*Issues with the consultation and what I have done to remedy them*
In terms of its organisation so far I accept that there have been issues. The most significant of all has been regarding late or non-delivery of the consultation packs. This is due to the ongoing issues with the Royal Mail sorting office, and not due to any problems at Southwark Council. Nonetheless, I totally accept that this is not good enough and undermines our ability to consult meaningfully. For that reason, I and your other Goose Green councillors Victoria and Charlie have pushed for the East Dulwich consultation consultation to be extended to the 28th February and there to be a further letter sent out to the SE22 area of the consultation advising residents of how they can get a consultation pack if they have not already. If you have not received a consultation pack then you can get one by
- Requesting one by email highways@southwark.gov.uk
- Requesting one by phone 020 7525 0127
- Downloading the documents from the website: [consultations.southwark.gov.uk]

Given that some people will have missed the consultation meetings due to the Royal Mail issues we have also committed to organising further drop-ins and meetings for local traders in February (dates TBC).

*Business permits*
It is true that business permits are of higher cost than residents permits. This is because their purpose is for essential business use - like for instance the use of a van for deliveries - which would be unaffordable on a pay-per-hour basis.

*What next*
Zak raises a good point about what will happen next. It sounds like there is some confusion and misunderstanding about it which I want to clear up. It is very similar to the process in 2012.

- Once the consultation is concluded the officers will analyse the results and produce a report and recommendation
- This report will be public and hosted on the Southwark council website where residents will be able to make comments.
- After this a decision will be taken by the Cabinet Member responsible for transport and the environment: Cllr Richard Livingstone.

If the report is ready in time then Cllr Andy Simmons - Chair of Dulwich Community Council - has committed to putting it on the agenda of the March/April meeting before Cllr Livingstone makes his decision.

*Possible outcomes*
In the past the Council has only ever implemented three potential outcomes of a CPZ consultation. These are
- 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.

On the final outcome it is worth noting - to answer MarkT's query - that partial implementation would only apply to a contiguous area, not to smatterings of individual roads across East Dulwich.

None of these three outcomes involved the Council railroading decisions against the wishes of local residents. They are the only options on the table for this consultation too. You have my word on this, and also that of the Leader of the Council Peter John (one of the reasons for the slight delay in responding on here was that I wanted to make 100% sure of this with him).

I note TheArtfulDogger's point about the Spineway consultation and can see how the approach there might appear contradictory with that here. The key differences are that the Spineway is a piece of borough-wide infrastructure which affects a wider body of people than just those living on the affected streets, and also that it was in the Southwark Labour manifesto and therefore has a democratic mandate. The consultation in this case was not to decide whether or not to implement a Spineway but rather to work out the best way to do so. By contrast, the proposed CPZ follows demands from East Dulwich residents and is designed to benefit primarily those in East Dulwich. So if it does not win majority support it will not be implemented.

I hope that this answers everyone's questions.

Best wishes
James

P.S. I am indeed a democratic socialist, which is one of the many traditions within the broader church of Marxism.

--------------------
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 - hello and thank you
Posted by alex_b January 29, 07:17PM

jamesmcash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I note TheArtfulDogger's point about the Spineway
> consultation and can see how the approach there
> might appear contradictory with that here. The key
> differences are that the Spineway is a piece of
> borough-wide infrastructure which affects a wider
> body of people than just those living on the
> affected streets, and also that it was in the
> Southwark Labour manifesto and therefore has a
> democratic mandate. The consultation in this case
> was not to decide whether or not to implement a
> Spineway but rather to work out the best way to do
> so. By contrast, the proposed CPZ follows demands
> from East Dulwich residents and is designed to
> benefit primarily those in East Dulwich. So if it
> does not win majority support it will not be
> implemented.

Thank for your response, it's far more than we ever get from the Rye Lane councillors. However, this part does not in any way ring true. The overwhelming objections to the quietway proposals were about the way the scheme was being implemented. Namely that the pointless/counterproductive double yellow lines would make the introduction of a CPZ inevitable and that much of the Bellenden end of the implementation made things more dangerous for cyclists.

As per this consultation it was marred by shambolic public meetings where officers had no answers or explanations for most questions, were completely overwhelmed by the number of attendees and promised to take feedback on board and then didn't.

That after the consultations the views of residents were completely disregarded is in no way compatible with a "democratic mandate".

Also can you point me to where in your manifesto this was? The only commitment related to cycling is on page 10 ("We will make cycling accessible for all, increase cycle hangers where people want them, boost access to cycle hire, and double the proportion of journeys in Southwark done by bike." and there is no mention of the spine or quietway.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by Abe_froeman January 29, 07:47PM

It sounds to me like the council employees come up with ideas to raise revenue, their victims who live in Southwark object, and the councillors elected to face the council down are too gutless to pay heed to the voice of the people.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by Sporthuntor January 29, 08:59PM

jamesmcash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
By contrast, the proposed CPZ follows demands
> from East Dulwich residents and is designed to
> benefit primarily those in East Dulwich. So if it
> does not win majority support it will not be
> implemented.

Demands from a vocal minority (98 households over 5 years out of 8,000 households)...and as you indicate, from around the Goose Green area. Making the scale of this proposal totally disproportionate, and on the face of it a pretty naked attempt to generate additional revenues / drive an anti-car agenda for which little or no benefit will accrue to the community. Indeed, if there is an impact on the local traders we will definitely be taking a step backward - and I know from the drop-in that no impact assessment on local businesses has been carried out. And from discussions with local traders that they are almost universally against the proposal. You might have noticed the posters against the proposal in virtually every shop window.

The other thing that seemed not to have been done was a costing of the consultation process - or at least the poor council employees at the drop in had no idea of what the cost is. If you could share that information with us it would be interesting.

The extreme bias in the consultation documents is pretty shameless too. People are not stupid - we have been here before with Southwark council. I don't think you know this community very well, and unless this process is super transparent and the decisions that follow can clearly be traced back to what the local community wants, I suspect your stay as a councillor will be brief.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by singalto January 29, 10:11PM

I was at the DCC meeting this evening and found the CPZ part of it very frustrating. The councillors kept going on about how many people complain about parking when they go knocking on doors. Apart from James Barber, I have never had a councillor knock on my door, not even before local elections. The woman doing the presentation didnt really have necessary facts at her finger tips.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by Abe_froeman January 29, 10:57PM

That may be because James Barber campaigned out of hours rather than 9 to 5 mon to fri.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was january 29, 10:58pm by Abe_froeman.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by singalto January 29, 11:08PM

So?

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by Rockets January 29, 11:48PM

James,
Thank you for outlining the process, I think what we are interested in are your views on the proposal as it seems a large percentage of the residents within your ward, that you represent, are against it. You rightly point out that this is a hugely contentious issue, namely because people feel the council is trying to railroad this through without considering the consequences.

Let me be more specific:

- the consultation document is full of facts that upon further scrutiny do not stand up and are misleading at best
- parking pressure increased after the council extended double yellow lines, seemingly only in the CPZ area, which many interpreted as an uneccessary and unwarranted move that acted as a pre-cursor and catalyst to justifying the CPZ
- little consideration has been given to the impact on Lordship Lane
- the distribution of the consultation documents has been shambolic at best and how can anyone guarantee that spending even more money will resolve the issues?
- given the distribution issues will the significant numbers of signatures collected by local shopkeepers of people against the CPZ be considered?
- why is the council spending tax payers money on this consultation after receiving just 95 complaints about parking over a 3 year period - which represents just over 1% of the local population?
- is it correct that you are suggesting the highest permissible business rate for local traders?
- you talk about additional drop in meetings but are the views of those who attend going to be taken into account and will you assure us that they will be more professionally managed?

Oh and many of us dont care what your political leanings; we just want you to represent the views of those being impacted by these proposals.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was january 30, 10:45am by Rockets.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by singalto January 30, 01:12AM

Rockets, bravo!

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by Hemingway January 30, 09:44AM

All the shops/bars I like on Lordship Lane have posters up against the CPZ - the ones that noticeably don't are the chains. That, by itself, tells you a story about who this will effect.

Thanks James Mc for belatedly responding but better late than never so is appreciated

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by Sporthuntor January 30, 09:52AM

To add further context - see attached the sort of thing that awaits based on the experience of Grove Park residents after a flawed CPZ scheme was implemented on a very low turnout.

Please ensure you respond to the consultation!

[moderngov.southwark.gov.uk]

[camberwellconservationsocietyorg.files.wordpress.com]

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by Charles Martel January 30, 10:59AM

Abe_froeman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Labour councillors aren't going to be interested
> in stopping a proposal that taxes rich middle
> class car owners and capitalist business people.

The CPZ is a poll tax that will affect everyone with a car who parks it on the public highway. Home helps and carers will have to pay to visit their clients and relatives. The wide range of people using the community centre on Darrell Road will have to pay.

In the same way that people did not vote LibDem to get a Tory government. People did not vote Labour to get some kind of hysterical Green anti-car agenda inflicted on them.

Rich middle class people tend to have driveways.

Goto Page: Previous123456789Next
Current Page: 7 of 9

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