Forum Sponsors

www.no-flies.co.uk
xxxx
http://www.gardenia-gardens.com

Pippa's Guardians

Advertise here

The East Dulwich Forum
Would you recommend your builder, plumber, electrician or carpenter?
Goto Page: PreviousFirst...345678910111213...LastNext
Current Page: 8 of 17
messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by TheArtfulDogger January 30, 11:22AM

James

With reference your comments on the spineway, if the consultation was on the best way to implement it, and the majority vote was against the current plans, what is the new proposal and how is it different from the origional proposed plan

If there is no difference then what are you going to do as our elected councillor to represent the views of your electorate ?

Equally what is the update on the proposed Barry Road 20mph consultation that was run last year ?

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by singalto January 30, 12:03PM

An electric car charge point was installed yesterday right in the middle of what would become a long double yellow line if this madness goes ahead!

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by jamesmcash January 30, 06:21PM

Hi all

Let me try to your questions.

Abe_froeman - I think that you perhaps misread what I wrote. From the beginning of this process I have consistently said that I would fight for whatever residents opt for.

Sporthuntor - You are of course totally correct that ~100 households is a tiny minority of the total affected area. But given that these are totally unprompted requests, it is quite significant. And these are just the people who actively write to the council. In addition there are the people who raise it on the doorstep. I have knocked on thousands of doors across Goose Green and whenever I do I always ask if the resident has any issues or concerns to raise, without giving any prompting on topic. Parking is second only to Brexit, which I think speaks volumes. I accept that there have been some flaws in the way the consultation has been organised and - as I have emphasised above - I will only support implementation if it wins majority support but I think it was right to give the community the opportunity to have its voice heard.

Rockets - As I said above, my over-riding focus is not on whether or not I support the proposal personally but rather to ensure that the outcome best reflects the will of the local community. However, I am happy to share my personal view regardless. My personally preferred outcome would be partial implementation of the scheme so that the commuter issues around the train station are resolved but that areas which do not currently have issues are not affected. However, I should emphasise that this is just my personal view and I will push for whatever is supported by the consultation.

To answer your specific questions
- There is no guarantee that sending a further letter and extending the deadline will ensure everyone receives notification of the consultation but it is bound to help and will undoubtedly drive up the turnout, so I think it was the right decision.
- The decision will be taken solely on the basis of the consultation responses. Otherwise there is a high-risk of double-counting. I know that the local traders are encouraging residents to complete the consultation so I hope there will be a large and representative response rate.
- The business permit rates are benchmarked against other boroughs. Southwark's are cheaper than Lambeth, Islington, Hammersmith and Fulham, and Tower Hamlets. Furthermore, Westminster, City of London, and Kensington and Chelsea do not have business permits at all so local businesses have to pay the more expensive pay-per-hour rate.
- The views of those who attend the additional drop-in meetings will definitely be taken into account. I do not yet know the date but I am going to try my best to attend myself.

alex_b and TheArtfulDogger - Let me get back to you about the Southwark Spine, this predates me becoming a councillor so I want to make sure I have the correct information before I respond.

Regarding the Barry Road 20mph consultation, the response overwhelming showed that while there was some support for speed calming measures, the proposed lost of parking was considered to be too great. Consequently the local councillors are going to work with officers to bring back a new proposal.

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 - hello and thank you
Posted by singalto January 31, 08:47AM

James, 100 requests over three years is not enough to implement such a drastic scheme. Have you checked that these are 100 different households and that they still live in the area? There is a real problem with parking in my road but none of my neighbours want a CPZ. If we all complained about the cost of our council tax, it would not lead to a reduction.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by MarkT January 31, 10:06AM

"But given that these are totally unprompted requests, it is quite significant."

Totally unprompted? James, the Council continually publishes an invitation to write in if you want one in your area. How else do people know where to send their request?

Also, we have the enthusiasts reporting on this Forumthat they have been campaigning for years in their areas to drum up this minimal level of unsolicited requests.

At the meeting for local business, the officer initially stated that this CPZ consutation has been triggered by a "critical mass" of requests". This was immediately challenged, so the alternative explanation then given was that each year they count up the requests and plan their next CPZ where they have had the most requests.

They are simply exploiting the domino effect.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by intexasatthe moment January 31, 10:44AM

Just looked at James's twitter and seen this

Labour councillor for @GooseGreenLab, Southwark. Primary school teacher and President of @LambethNUT.

does he sleep at all ?

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by rendelharris January 31, 10:47AM

Good for him - we're all very vociferous from our keyboards but I don't see many of us (including me) putting our spare time where our mouth is, so to speak.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by jamesmcash January 31, 10:55AM

Dear MarkT and singalto

By 'unprompted' I mean that residents raise the issue themselves and not in response to a question. When I knock on doors I ask people if they have any issues or concerns. As I said before, the second most common response to this (after Brexit) is parking. If I prompted people by asking "do you have any concerns about parking?" more people would clearly raise it. So that figure of 100 represents not all the people who have concerns about parking but rather just the minority who raise them on the council website.

Of course, singalto is totally correct that these 100 requests are not alone sufficient reason to implement the scheme. But no one is claiming they are. Those requests, alongside the many others who raise it with us on the doorstep, are just sufficient reason to ask the question more widely, which is what the Council is doing.

I have been very clear from the beginning of this process that the consultation will not lead to a CPZ being implemented against the wishes of those living in the area. Presumably you would agree that if the majority supports it then this is sufficient reason to implement it.

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?
Posted by jamesmcash January 31, 11:11AM

Hi intexasatthemoment and rendelharris

Sorry I was typing the last post while you posted yours so I didn't see it. Yes I do try to keep myself busy but I definitely find time for plenty of sleep!

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 - hello and thank you
Posted by MarkT January 31, 12:00PM

James. I should have quoted your sentence in full and not allowed you the opportunity to divert the question. You wrote:

"Sporthuntor - You are of course totally correct that ~100 households is a tiny minority of the total affected area. But given that these are totally unprompted requests, it is quite significant."

Those 100 requests are obviously prompted by Southwark Council. A quick search about parking on the internet takes you straight to this page:
[forms.southwark.gov.uk]


James, I was not questioning your doorstep style.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help?
Posted by Rockets January 31, 12:38PM

James,
Firstly let me say thank you for engaging with us all on this subject - I very much appreciate you are caught between a rock and a hard place on this one.

To address the prompted/unprompted discussion above my experience when door-stepped by a Labour representative a couple of years ago was that she asked if parking was a problem - I certainly didn't bring it up!

I think many of the issues local people have about this whole process is the way the consultation is being handled - a lot of people are feeling the CPZ is being forced upon them. It is obvious the council has an agenda to roll-out CPZs across the borough and we all know this has nothing to do with the benefit of local people but revenue. Add to this the fact the council extended double-yellows (only within the proposed CPZ area) to remove a large number of parking spaces you can see why people are somewhat sceptical about the motives. Many people I have spoken to are resigned to the fact that the council will force a CPZ upon East Dulwich whether people want it or not.

And when I look at the way the consultation process is being handled it merely validates the position of those who believe that the council is creating a scenario to validate their decision to roll it out.

- The prospectus failed to reach many of those impacted - to be fair I think you get a free pass on this one as those of us who live in the area know how horrendous the Royal mail is at the moment in the area.

- The prospectus is so biased towards a CPZ and full of erroneous stats that just don't stand-up to any scrutiny that it is laughable. It is blatant propaganda that should not be being shared as part of any "democratic" process.

- You say the council is asking the questions widely but you are only mailing (or trying to mail) the roads directly covered by the CPZ - yet the impact stretches far more widely than that. Surely the views of people living one road the other side of the Barry Road boundary should be gathered too as they will likely be directly impacted by it.

- Unless you receive the mailing you have no idea where to actually register you comments and it is very difficult to find on the Southwark website. When you get there you can register the street upon which you live and if you do not live on one of the streets impacted you have to put "Other" which makes people think that you will only consider comments from those people within the zone.

- Thousands of people who use Lordship Lane have signed a petition yet these will not be considered.

- The drop-in meeting was shambolic (some say deliberately so) and people were not allowed to register their opposition to the plans.

And there are plenty more examples quoted within this thread that validate the perception that the council is creating a scenario to justify its decision to roll-out a CPZ.

The sanguine amongst us on the thread understand the issues people have parking near their homes in parts of East Dulwich but are wise enough to realise a CPZ does not fix those problems - and certainly not in the way the council is currently planning. It might offer a temporary fix for the few but creates bigger issues for the many! (Sorry I couldn't resist winking smiley )



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was january 31, 12:48pm by Rockets.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - hello and thank you
Posted by ed_pete January 31, 12:42PM

James it'd be good to know:
1 - what the threshold of requests over what period triggers a consultation process at the expense of all council tax payers (at a time when local authorities are continually talking about reductions in central government funding).
2 - whether or not the council has confirmed the requestors (a) still live in the area (b) whether they still consider it an issue (they may now have a dropped kerb/osp arrangement)
3 - whether they can publish a map of where the requestors live. It would interesting to see how many live close to the station for example.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help?
Posted by AylwardS February 01, 06:47AM

Regarding the East Dulwich CPZ someone has put the links from the initial, informal consultation on the Dog Kennel Hill Zone. The zone did not go ahead as it was proposed at that time, but was amended. The response rate may have been low but the option was there to respond and changes were made to the design. Iíve not seen a post from anyone to say what the situation is in Grove Park now.

I checked the maps issued initially with the consultation for DKH and the revised maps and less yellow lines / more permit holder bays were included in Grove Park in the revised maps so if you have concerns about the yellow lines / mix of bays proposed for your road put that in your response and ask for changes the Council does listen. Iím sure Grove Park lost parking spaces as there are a lot of yellow lines on the plans - dropped kerbs? I know comments have been made that spaces will be lost because of yellow lines across dropped kerbs where visitors park with the householders permission but no yellow line means any vehicle can park there and not every driver is considerate. I saw a post on here from someone who lived by a school and couldnít get their car off the drive as there was no restriction and parents parked there to take Johnny to school and when advised they were blocking them in the response was ďIíll only be a couple of minutesĒ.

The report of the results of the consultation [www.southwark.gov.uk] for Grove Park shows
* A difference of opinion from respondents on whether they wanted a zone
* A majority wanted the two hour zone - as introduced
* A majority wanted the zone to operate Monday to Friday - as introduced

There was a cock up when the DKH order was written which has now been corrected. I donít know Grove Park but based on our part of the DKH zone Iíd expect its better in the mornings, maybe not all day as it sounds like their issue is with parking for the hospital so its not commuter parking in the same way as here. Itís not possible for someone from outside the area to park all day as paid for parking is limited and the vehicle must move when the paid for time expires - see extract from order below
ď (i) vehicles which have paid the parking charge of £2.75 per hour (using 'Pay by Phone') may be left for up to two hours (provided no vehicle may return to a parking place on that same day), or (ii) vehicles issued with a valid residents' permit, valid business permit or valid visitors' permit may be left without time limit, between the hours of 11 am and 1 pm on Mondays to Fridays inclusive.
Located in GROVE PARK, the easternmost north-west to south-east arm, on the south-west side, at the side of No. 37 Grove Park (40 metres in length).Ē

I can only say the DKH zone has solved the problem of commuters parking all day near the station but thatís not the only consideration around Lordship Lane. If you think the issues raised for Grove Park are relevant to your road go down there between 11 and 1 and see what its like. Now the order has been corrected it can, and should be being enforced and thatís what you could expect from a 2 hour zone when its operating.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help?
Posted by singalto February 01, 01:05PM

People who contact the council about the parking will complain about it but nobody is going to contact them to say things are fine. James,if you had ever knocked on my door, I might have said parking is a problem but I still donít want a CPZ.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help?
Posted by The Nappy Lady February 03, 12:11AM

ďThe business permit rates are benchmarked against other boroughs. Southwark's are cheaper than Lambeth, Islington, Hammersmith and Fulham, and Tower Hamlets. Furthermore, Westminster, City of London, and Kensington and Chelsea do not have business permits at all so local businesses have to pay the more expensive pay-per-hour rate.l

But again I ask, why should the businesses pay FIVE TIMES more for a permit than a resident does?

Businesses pay high business rates, I see no argument to justify why their parking permit should be higher than the residents permit? Saying itís comparable to other bouroughs is, with all due respect not an acceptable argument (if I said your neighbor pays her cleaner £50 an hour so you should too Iím sure youíd have something to say about it)!

We were told the cost of the permits is set in order to cover the cost of implementing & running the scheme.

Someone please do the maths for me the income will cover these costs many times over & yes, yes we know the surplus will be used for road repairs etc ....

So is the suggestion here that the local businesses DESERVE to contribute more to the scheme than the local residents do, and if so, why?

The shops & businesses make the area vibrant, they bring revenue to the area, they employ local people, they already contribute so much. I donít understand the rationale, does anyone else?

Yet more proof, as if we need it, that the CPZ is nothing more than yet another money making, arbitrary tax on the local people & local businesses.

Iím sorry James, you havenít answered my question at all.

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

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help?
Posted by jamesmcash February 03, 10:55AM

Dear all

MarkT:
I apologise if you feel I was being evasive. The requests on the doorstep and those submitted online are similar in that neither are the direct response to a question about parking; both require the resident to independently identify parking as an issue for them and to then decide to raise it. The Council does not routinely write to residents asking them to complete that form.

Regardless of the overall outcome of the consultation, I would be astonished if fewer than 100 people support the implementation of a CPZ. That's because fewer people indicate their support unprompted than do when directly asked.


Rockets
Thatís interesting about your experience with a Labour activist a couple of years ago. Not my experience at all.

I take on board your points about the Council being clearly in favour of the CPZ being implemented. In a sense this is true - on a global level the Councilís policy is that CPZs are good because of their impact on air pollution and road safety. But at the same time our policy is also that they should only be implemented with majority support. So in a sense the consultation is in part an opportunity for the Council to persuade people that a CPZ is a good thing, whilst also recognising that it is down to the people to decide. I donít think that this is undemocratic. However, I do agree that - regardless of your overall view on whether or no to implement - there will clearly be some people who will lose out from it, and perhaps these downsides should have been properly outlined. For me, it is a question of finding the right balance.

ed_pete
1) I do not think that there is a hard threshold because the consultations need to be consistent with officersí work plans. If lots of areas reached a threshold at the same time it would not be possible to run a consultation in all of them. So it is rather a question of balancing the number of requests with other demands on officersí time.
2) I am afraid I do not have any direct figures for this, but I assure you that there are plenty of people calling for this consultation. I receive countless emails from them.
3) It would break data protection rules to show exactly where they lived but your suspicion is indeed correct that the bulk of them live around the station.

AylwardS
Thanks for this, very interesting and helpful.

Singalto
Yes you are correct, I made this point in my initial post on the subject further up the thread.

ď*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.Ē


Molly/The Nappy Lady
One of the key points of the proposed CPZs is to have fewer parked cars on the roads, and to make it easier for residents to find parking spaces. This means balancing the needs of different road users: residents, customers of local businesses, and employees of local businesses. The calculation that has been made is that access to parking should come at a lower cost to local residents than the other groups. This is, in my view, totally reasonable given the alternatives that each group faces if they cannot park. If the latter two groups do not have a permit, or either will not or cannot pay for the hourly rate, then they can make the journey by another means of transport and leave their car at home. Whereas if a resident has no permit then they simply cannot have a car at all. So the consequences of not having a permit are much greater for residents than for employees and therefore it is right that their access to a permit is prioritised over that of other groups.

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?
Posted by ed26 February 03, 12:52PM

I completely agree with most of the recent thoughts in this thread. I was fairly open-minded about the CPZ but I have become very anti-CPZ in recent weeks due to the way in which it seems to be forced upon us. My thoughts...

- Unless Southwark can demonstrate that the scheme is cost-neutral (i.e. revenue will only be used to cover the cost of implementing and policing the CPZ) then I refuse to believe that this is anything but a revenue-making scheme.

- The consultation focuses purely on HOW the scheme should be implemented, not IF. I still want a say on how the scheme should be implemented if there's no choice, but I fear that my stats will show I am in favour of a particular approach

- I'm not convinced that the pollution and traffic in ED is caused by people driving to/from the area. I'd think that the majority is through traffic, or local residents hopping around town. A CPZ wouldn't reduce pollution from either type of traffic (and may increase it if it makes it easier for local residents to park around LSL). Has the Council published the results of its traffic surveys, etc?

- My experience of activists is that they ARE very pushy and I have been asked about my views on parking, although this was possibly just to try to extend the conversation when I was trying to get rid of her

- I'd like the Council to try to tackle the blatant parking abuse before inflicting a CPZ on everyone - lines of cars for sale, camper vans for hire, cars advertising man & van for hire, etc. I appreciate that a CPZ would solve this problem but that's the common sledgehammer and nut approach

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help?
Posted by Jim1234 February 03, 02:08PM

One thing I haven't understood is whether, officially, the plans will be droped if the consultantion comes back with a majority against?

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help?
Posted by The Nappy Lady February 03, 07:19PM

James, Iím not talking about employees, I am talking about companies that HAVE to have vans in order to operate - eg without the vans the business would have to close. I know several businesses in ED that will be effected in this way.

So again, I donít feel your explanation is acceptable.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that as an employee I cannot have a business permit for my car as obviously it is registered to my home address, not my workplace in ED. So to be clear that is absolutely not why I am pursuing this point.

However, it is the case that I am anxious about the cost of the business permits for the small independent company I work for.

If CPZ comes in I will have to reduce my hours and take a pay cut to allow myself the extra time needed to walk or bus to work and back, or take an effective pay cut by paying around £30 a week or more to continue to work in the way I have for over 11 years. So either way I am facing stress, despite the fact I always manage to park within two minutes of work, five days a week, at varying times from 8am to 11am, and sometimes later if Iíve had to run errands. Strange then to consider CPZ is needed donít you think?

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

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help?
Posted by Rockets February 03, 08:53PM

James,
Once again thank you for taking the time to respond.

I appreciate that the council is a fan of CPZs but, in the same way Brexit was sold to people on the basis of untruths, the councilís materials are full of examples and facts and figures that are deliberately misleading. It tries to present itself as balanced but is anything but. And we have had members of this forum presenting the stats in the consultation documentation as validation of the good CPZs do.

It seems to me that the majority of residents both in the affected area and beyond are against the CPZs but they also feel that the council will manipulate and distort the results to their advantage and will railroad the plans. Nothing about the consultation process, or the way it is being implemented, is reassuring them that this is anything but a done deal and that the council is doggedly pursuing an agenda of revenue generation ahead of needs of the local community.

The one fact that does stand up to scrutiny is that parking in East Dulwich became a big issue when the council extended the double yellows a year or so ago within only the CPZ area which we were sold on the basis of ďsafetyĒ but most saw as a ploy to create parking pressure to help justify a CPZ.

If the council pursues this campaign it will do irreparable harm to the Lordship Lane and East Dulwich community that you represent and the outpouring of resentment towards it on this forum and beyond should serve as a red flag to the council.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help?
Posted by Abe_froeman February 03, 10:24PM

The frank admissions that the council are desperate to implement it and the consultation documents were one sided will be very helpful in a judicial review against the seemingly inevitable decision to impose this CPZ on goose grren ward.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help?
Posted by ianr February 03, 10:52PM

Abe_froeman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The frank admissions that the council are
> desperate to implement it

Can you point me to this please. I've unsuccessfully searched the thread for 'desperate' and 'admi' but don't have the willpower to plough through whole threads unaided.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help?
Posted by Abe_froeman February 04, 10:29AM

A few quotes form the council, Ian, admitting a very strong desire to get this done:

"I take on board your points about the Council being clearly in favour of the CPZ being implemented."

"...on a global level the Councilís policy is that CPZs are good because of their impact on air pollution and road safety."

"... the consultation is in part an opportunity for the Council to persuade people that a CPZ is a good thing... "

"One of the key points of the proposed CPZs is to have fewer parked cars on the roads."

It's so obviously a done deal and the consultation has been exploited in favour of the council's position.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help?
Posted by Penguin68 February 04, 10:41AM

I would accept that there is an argument about air quality - although equally if cars are driving around looking for somewhere to park, or dropping someone off at the shops and driving round to pick them up (I've done both) that wouldn't hold - and the key issue on air quality is to do with NO2 from diesels, CO2 emissions from petrol cars have a different sort of environmental impact.

However as regards to safety - the effect if implemented will be to make local roads far less parked up (because so much previously parked bits will be banned from parking through double yellows etc, not because there will be fewer local cars wishing to park) such that speeding cars are far more likely, both contributing to accidents and making them worse when they happen. I have seen no evidence to support the safety statement at all.

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help?
Posted by The Nappy Lady February 06, 01:57PM

James, Iím not talking about employees, I am talking about companies that HAVE to have vans in order to operate - eg without the vans the business would have to close. I know several businesses in ED that will be effected in this way.

So again, I donít feel your explanation is acceptable.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that as an employee I cannot have a business permit for my car as obviously it is registered to my home address, not my workplace in ED. So to be clear that is absolutely not why I am pursuing this point.

However, it is the case that I am anxious about the cost of the business permits for the small independent company I work for.

If CPZ comes in I will have to reduce my hours and take a pay cut to allow myself the extra time needed to walk or bus to work and back, or take an effective pay cut by paying around £30 a week or more to continue to work in the way I have for over 11 years. So either way I am facing stress, despite the fact I always manage to park within two minutes of work, five days a week, at varying times from 8am to 11am, and sometimes later if Iíve had to run errands. Strange then to consider CPZ is needed donít you think?

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

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

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help?
Posted by Hemingway February 06, 02:32PM

Rockets Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> James,
> Once again thank you for taking the time to
> respond.
>
> I appreciate that the council is a fan of CPZs
> but, in the same way Brexit was sold to people on
> the basis of untruths, the councilís materials are
> full of examples and facts and figures that are
> deliberately misleading. It tries to present
> itself as balanced but is anything but. And we
> have had members of this forum presenting the
> stats in the consultation documentation as
> validation of the good CPZs do.
>
> It seems to me that the majority of residents both
> in the affected area and beyond are against the
> CPZs but they also feel that the council will
> manipulate and distort the results to their
> advantage and will railroad the plans. Nothing
> about the consultation process, or the way it is
> being implemented, is reassuring them that this is
> anything but a done deal and that the council is
> doggedly pursuing an agenda of revenue generation
> ahead of needs of the local community.
>
> The one fact that does stand up to scrutiny is
> that parking in East Dulwich became a big issue
> when the council extended the double yellows a
> year or so ago within only the CPZ area which we
> were sold on the basis of ďsafetyĒ but most saw as
> a ploy to create parking pressure to help justify
> a CPZ.
>
> If the council pursues this campaign it will do
> irreparable harm to the Lordship Lane and East
> Dulwich community that you represent and the
> outpouring of resentment towards it on this forum
> and beyond should serve as a red flag to the
> council.


Well said. I'll vote for anyone who opposes this in local elections

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help?
Posted by Abe_froeman February 06, 04:55PM

James do any of the Councillors (Goose Green Ward or otherwise) actually live in the area under threat of the CPZ?

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help?
Posted by Galileo February 06, 06:52PM

Abe_froeman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> James do any of the Councillors (Goose Green Ward
> or otherwise) actually live in the area under
> threat of the CPZ?

What difference does that make?

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help?
Posted by Sue February 06, 07:14PM

I would like to publicly give profuse thanks to James McAsh.

I phoned the council a week ago with a question I needed answering, and was told to email a specific address and the email would then be passed to the relevant person to respond, but I had no response.

I then phoned the council again today. Nobody seemed to know anything about the email, I hadn't been given a reference number, and I then spent a large part of the afternoon being passed from one person to another in the council, none of whom could answer a simple question that had by this time become quite urgent.

I emailed James in desperation at around 4.30pm this afternoon, and just before 7pm I received an email from the head of the relevant department answering my question in full.

I am well impressed and extremely grateful! Thanks, James! You're a star!

messageRe: Goose Green councillors - how can we help?
Posted by cella February 07, 08:48AM

Hemingway Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rockets
>
>
> Well said. I'll vote for anyone who opposes this
> in local elections

Really? You would use your precious vote on a single issue in the local elections?

Goto Page: PreviousFirst...345678910111213...LastNext
Current Page: 8 of 17

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