gsirett

but you haven't thought it relvant to mention any of this until now?

James The role of property developers in the proposed Controlled Parking Zone I have been asked to send this letter to you by a number of local residents. I am sending this as an open letter as I feel that the information that has come to light today will quickly spread as rumour if not and that you should answer in a public forum Over the past few weeks there has been a heated debate on the East Dulwich Forum about a proposed Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) at East Dulwich Station. Many people, myself included, have felt that you have been promoting this scheme, that you seem to have been attempting to drive the scheme through and not holding a balanced view of the needs & concerns of many local stakeholders. I have felt that this is not appropriate behaviour for a local councillor. Time and time again you have told us that this scheme is required, there is a significant parking problem and that it is being consulted on in response to ?substantial demand from local residents? (which turns out to be c.40 people in 3 years) There has been much anger that residents in the surrounding area were not consulted and only found out about this through word of mouth. Despite this, over 1500 local residents & businesses signed petitions against the scheme in a 4 day period. When asked to extend the consultation by a couple of weeks, to allow people to be informed and public feeling to be properly judged the council refused. Many people like me, are wondering why a councillor, who always seems to have done a great job of engaging with the local community, seems so intent on ignoring local feeling and promoting this scheme. Today I learnt some most disturbing information: 1. It appears that the East Dulwich CPZ consultation has been funded by a property developer to the tune of ?20,000 2. It appears that said property developer is looking to build 20 flats on the site of East Dulwich Garden centre http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeNeighbours&TheSystemkey=9538657 3. It appears that the development will provide only 2 parking spaces (for disabled people) for the entire 20 flats, so is being promoted as a ?car free? development 4. Two local councillors voted in favour of the application, one of whom was you, James Barber On behalf of my fellow residents (and I?m sure many other people who voted for you) , may I ask that you please clarify the following: 1. Can you please explain whilst during 2-3 weeks of debate on the CPZ ( a debate to which you were a major contributor) you failed to mention, once, that this property development was planned. Not once did you mention it, even during some of your very detailed arguments in favour of the scheme. 2. During the same period, you failed to mention that the consultation was being funded by a property developer (or part funded?). 3. Why, during the same period, you maintained that the consultation was being performed in response to requests by residents, not mentioning that the development was also driving it? 4. Why the consultation documents presented to the local community did not mention this development or it?s likely impact on the local area ? the fact that it could only really proceed if a CPZ went in. The documents had VERY detailed analysis of car usage & parking patterns but failed to mention that 20 homes were being built with no parking. 5. A shortage of money has been repeatedly given as the reason for not consulting a wider area (due to council cuts) but actually you had access to private finance through this developer. Why was the developer not asked to fund a wider consultation? As well as these questions, I strongly suggest that you take the opportunity to show that you have no relationship with the property developer. As I have said many times, I am not a conspiracy theorist, but many are (and quite a few of the ?conspiracies? in relation to this proposed CPZ seem to have been true) .

James The role of property developers in the proposed Controlled Parking Zone I have been asked to send this letter to you by a number of local residents. I am sending this as an open letter as I feel that the information that has come to light today will quickly spread as rumour if not and that you should answer in a public forum Over the past few weeks there has been a heated debate on the East Dulwich Forum about a proposed Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) at East Dulwich Station. Many people, myself included, have felt that you have been promoting this scheme, that you seem to have been attempting to drive the scheme through and not holding a balanced view of the needs & concerns of many local stakeholders. I have felt that this is not appropriate behaviour for a local councillor. Time and time again you have told us that this scheme is required, there is a significant parking problem and that it is being consulted on in response to ?substantial demand from local residents? (which turns out to be c.40 people in 3 years) There has been much anger that residents in the surrounding area were not consulted and only found out about this through word of mouth. Despite this, over 1500 local residents & businesses signed petitions against the scheme in a 4 day period. When asked to extend the consultation by a couple of weeks, to allow people to be informed and public feeling to be properly judged the council refused. Many people like me, are wondering why a councillor, who always seems to have done a great job of engaging with the local community, seems so intent on ignoring local feeling and promoting this scheme. Today I learnt some most disturbing information: 1. It appears that the East Dulwich CPZ consultation has been funded by a property developer to the tune of ?20,000 2. It appears that said property developer is looking to build 20 flats on the site of East Dulwich Garden centre http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeNeighbours&TheSystemkey=9538657 3. It appears that the development will provide only 2 parking spaces (for disabled people) for the entire 20 flats, so is being promoted as a ?car free? development 4. Two local councillors voted in favour of the application, one of whom was you, James Barber On behalf of my fellow residents (and I?m sure many other people who voted for you) , may I ask that you please clarify the following: 1. Can you please explain whilst during 2-3 weeks of debate on the CPZ ( a debate to which you were a major contributor) you failed to mention, once, that this property development was planned. Not once did you mention it, even during some of your very detailed arguments in favour of the scheme. 2. During the same period, you failed to mention that the consultation was being funded by a property developer (or part funded?). 3. Why, during the same period, you maintained that the consultation was being performed in response to requests by residents, not mentioning that the development was also driving it? 4. Why the consultation documents presented to the local community did not mention this development or it?s likely impact on the local area ? the fact that it could only really proceed if a CPZ went in. The documents had VERY detailed analysis of car usage & parking patterns but failed to mention that 20 homes were being built with no parking. 5. A shortage of money has been repeatedly given as the reason for not consulting a wider area (due to council cuts) but actually you had access to private finance through this developer. Why was the developer not asked to fund a wider consultation? As well as these questions, I strongly suggest that you take the opportunity to show that you have no relationship with the property developer. As I have said many times, I am not a conspiracy theorist, but many are (and quite a few of the ?conspiracies? in relation to this proposed CPZ seem to have been true) .

That explains Sooooooo much By god, and to think that barber and co had been economical with the truth so far, this is simply unbelievable There has been a 3 week debate on this forum about this flawed CPZ, during which time barber & co have shamelessly promoted the scheme, whilst maintaining a veil of "I want whats best for the people" NOT ONCE does he mention a development that that can only go ahead ( on it's car free promise) if a CPZ is introduced ( or how else could "car free" be enforced I really am lost for words

Unbelievable The good people of Queens Road are currently being consulted on a CPZ. They are in a FIRST STAGE CONSULTATION (see definition below) which ?aims to establish whether or not there is support for a CPZ.? Only when that is complete, do they go to a 2nd stage, looking at the detailed design, hours, etc This seems like a sensible, pragmatic way of doing it: lets see if its wanted before we spend 1000?s on detailed design consultation.Easpecially seeing money is so tight for communication SO WHY ON EARTH IS EAST DULWICH HAVING A COMBINED 1ST & 2ND STAGE CONSULTATION ? We?ve constantly been told by the councillors that money is an issue: then why not do the simple (and cheap ?) 1st stage, well.,err?. first. "We usually ask a large area so that everyone is aware of the consultation. " - NOT ON MY PATCH YOU AINT Unless, it couldn?t be a deliberate attempt to drive the scheme through could it, by giving people the impression that it is a fait accompli? From http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2890/queens_road-first_stage_consultation_document

Chener Books Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My down to earth comment about the marginal cost > of consulting the streets immediately outside the > proposed CPZ got buried under theorectical > posturing. > > Why was Matham Grove not consulted? > > Because it would cost to much. > > How much would it cost to consult 34 houses, say > 68 households, in Matham Grove? > > No more than ?136. > > Why was Matham Grove not consulted? > > Because you're not worth it. > > John K What gets me, is that Southwark must have spent a small fortune on designing,printing & distributing the glossy booklets to every houselhold in the proposed CPZ but they couldn't muster any way of letting anybody else in the community know? Yes,yes, I know they'll say "it's on our website" - but, sorry, www.southwark.gov.uk isn't in my top 10 sites. Yes,yes, they say "we put notices up on lamppsosts in the area" ...... has anybody actually seen these?: they're tiny: I had to actually go looking for them. plus, once it became apparent that there was a lot of strong public feeling about this, they refused to extend the consultation by a couple of weeks (at the suggestion of a local councillor) So, I put it to Southwark that the limited communication wasn't about cost saving......it was part of a cynical descion to only consult with a sub-set of the community that they thought would be more in favour of this flawed scheme; a scheme that will raise much revenue and allow CPZ's to be spread into the rest of the area

Huguenot You just do t seem to get it I don't think anybody is denying that there is a parking problem in the area. But, the proposed cpz simply will not fix it... It will move the problem from one place to another. The problem is that the zone, as proposed, is much too small. There is still plenty of parking outside CPZ within 5 mins walk of the station, so it won't stop commuters Plus, many if these "commuters" are likely to be workers at the hospital, GM's, the chemist, etc. They will still park in the area The question is: is the overall life of people ( both in and out of CPZ) better or worse with this scheme. I believe it will be worse. That is my opinion. The problem is, the council haven't asked me

1489 members of the local East Dulwich Community have signed a petition in opposition to this scheme within a 4 day period. Message just sent to Paul Gellard & Barrie Hargrove ============= ======== Given that the vast majority of people in the area only seem to have found out about this scheme (and it's "consultation") within the last week or so, I think this should sent a clear message to Cllrs Hargrove and Barber. I now suggest that this scheme is either shelved or a proper consultation is performed (one that takes into account the views of not just the people within the proposed zone)

Removed

garnwba Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > gsirett "I know 99% of businesses in east dulwich > have asked for this not to go ahead" > > Can we actually stick to real factual evidence > rather than ridiculous Dail Mail type headlines > You don't know 99% of businesses are against it, > you haven't asked all of then you are just making > wild assumptions. FACTUAL HEADLINE: the SSBA traders association have this week walked around over 230 businsses in East Dulwich and they have had 99% of businesses saying they object to the scheme. They think they've covered off nearly all of the "bricks and morter" busnisses in the area.( and I'm sure you'll agree, if they've missed a few, it is statistically significant) DAILY MAIL HEADLINE : "luny council in forced parking shocker!!"

peckhamboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Huguenot, in the interests of fairness, perhaps > you could disclose which part of the zone or wider > east dulwich area you live in, and how the > proposed cpz will affect you? Not political, just furious at being treated with such contempt by 2 councillors who HAVE a clear political agenda, whilst telling us this is all driven by demand and it will make everybody's lives better. BTW I voted liv dem last time ( and time before that. National and local

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Chener Books, is it odd?.... > It seems you don't live in the affected area, so > can I take it that your campaign is either > politically motivated, or simply to guarantee more > parking space for your customers? > > Penguin68, is your campaign politically motivated > too, or do you live in the zone? > > Just asking, like. I should think neither of these people live in the zone, but both of their lives are about to get a whole lot worse I would also suggest, as these people are going to be directly ( and, in all probability, negatively ) affected, they have a right to be consulted on this YOUR attitude of " if you're not in the zone, you don't count" is the same as southwark councils In defence of chener books, I know 99% of businesses in east dulwich have asked for this not to go ahead. Don't acuse people of being politically motivated, they are scared this will damage their businesses and the area. I'm sure you'll love it when chener books closes and mcdonalds opens up: you'll be as to drive down there, pick up your burger and park when you get home ( if you believe southwark....it's not what I found living in a CP Z)

Sign a petition, start a petition,Make sure you complete southwarks consultation form ( google east dulwich CPZ) Write to your councillor, write to your MP Do NOT accept that your elected representatives have got your best interests at heart and, finally, agree never to laugh at It's All About Money conspiracy theorists again Edited to say: actually, one more thing.....make it your mission to make sure cllr James barber and cllr Barrie Hargrove never get elected again, never forget the time they tried to gerrymander and mislead the people that elected them, never forget the time they ignored local businessses, never forget the time they treated their constituents with such contempt that they wouldn't answer their questions. I don't care if you vote labour, conservative or raving loony....just don't let these people stamp on your lives with such impunity

bmu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I assume that if one has signed the petition in a > local shop, this will be included in the overall > petition. Is that right? Absolutely It's all a bit un-coordinated, but they should all get there. But I suppose seeing most people in east dulwich seem to have found out about this in the last week or so, it's not bad

All So far, our (me & Sillywoman) petition has got about 400 signatures from local residents (I think 1 person ticked the "in favour" box) I know there are many other petitions floating around. I'm told that there is also a petition of local ED businesses where 99% of them (over 200) have objected to the proposed flawed CPZ These petitions are essential: I do not yet want to go into details as I've asked some confirmation questions, but I fear that, based on an email I've had from Southwark today, responses to their consultation will only be counted if you are IN the CPZ zone (so if you live next door, it's a bit like voting on x-factor after the lines have closed) As I say, I have asked some questions so will confirm this on here once I've had that clarificaction Paul Gellard has stated that he will acept petitions as long as they are sent to him either by email ([email protected]) or by sending to their "Tooley St office" (not sure what number) He's also said he needs them by Monday (not Friday as we'd all thought)as that?s when he starts his analysis So, to all of those doing their own petition, I'm repeating Zak's instructions below:

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As an outsider looking in, there seems to be three > groups to look at: > > Those living inside the CPZ - a reasonable (but > not substantial) majority feel that ?125 is a > reasonable fee to pay to ease parking congestion. > > Those just outside the CPZ - the majority claim > ?125 is an outrageous fee (although they won't pay > it), and claim there is no congestion problem but > simultaneously say that the congrestion will get > passed to them (somewhat contradictory then). > > Those who live more than a mile from the CPZ, but > use the CPZ area for commuter and shopper parking > - claim ?125 is an outrageous fee, claim there is > no congestion problem, and use children, the > handicapped, geriatrics or the commercial success > of LL as justification for their convenience, and > attack the council for carpetbagging and the > government for both the Iraq war and the price of > petrol. > > Ho hum. Huguenot, Welcome to the thread. Your analysis is welcome, but I don't think it relfects the overwhelming views being expressed here. If you look back through the 18 odd pages of discussion , the ?125 is not heavily disucssed. This is not about money. This is about a badly flawed design. A design that will impact far more people than southwark are letting on. It is also about not being consulted I would hazard a guess that the majority of people on this forum, like me, could compfortably afford this (it's a guess, please don't all cry "well, I can't GSirett", just a guess based on the local demographics ). It's two tanks of petrol to put in in perspective I am defiantly in the "Just Outside the zone" camp and, like most people on this forum, have never said there is not a problem in the proposed CPZ area. There is a problem on, say, Elsie Road, abosolutly. But there is also a problem on ED Grove, Glengarry Road, Ashbourne Grove, Trossach Road, Tarbert Road, Hillsborough Road, Lordship Lane, Matham GRove, Tell Grove [ I won't go on, I think you get the idea] - these roads are also very densly parked. But these roads are about to get a WHOLE lot worse and these roads ARE NOT BEING CONSULTED. Many of these Roads are 5 mins walk to the station, they're about to get the commuters and anybody in the CPZ who dosn't fancy buying a ticket. So, there's a debate to be had about whether we leave as is, or whether to put in a well designed CPZ that balances the needs of the local community. But, I think, the currently proposed scheme is too flawed.

Only 2 hours left We need collect these in order to get to southwark by tomorrow AM

Take some encouragement from this: http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/00,news,23682,440,00.htm

Like so many aspects of this flawed proposal, Cllr Barber is picking and choosing certain facts and certain people to listen to in order to steamroller this scheme through. He now decides to rubbbish the views from this forum The ED forum has suited Cllr Barber very well for the last couple of years. It's helped him build a strong reputation and, in fact he won "online councillor of the year" http://jamesbarber.mycouncillor.org.uk/2011/02/09/online-councillor-of-the-year-2011/ . Well done After that award, he said of the East Dulwich Forum: An "online Surgery". Not an "online campaign". If 500 people were to turn up to your physical surgery, would you take that with a "pinch of salt"? For those of you who doubt that this proposed CPZ MAY be flawed and doubt that the data may have been heavily "selected" and doubt that there is a secondary agenda: ask yourselves "why is JB making such a fool of himselft over this?" - is he really doing all of this because of the 45 compalints from residents about parking in 3 YEARS ? Edited to say: for the record, I have one EDF login and have been clear that I live on a road adjacent to the CPZ. I have NEVER been involved in any form of campaign or local politics before, but I beleive it is only through this forum that most people in East Dulwich have heard about this scheme, we haven't been consulted

I''ve really tried not to make any of this political but it does seem that Lib Dem councillors in Southwark have got a track record in letting down their constituants with respect to CPZ's http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/00,news,23819,5222,00.htm

James, I live 50-100 m from the edge of the zone (you know that by now) as do lots and lots of other people , I currently have parking stress, and I am about to get a LOT more parking stress. What weighting will my response get ?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi boanome, > The space for parking varies by time of day now as > single yellow lines cut in and out. The lowest > amount of legal parking (after the yellow lines > cut in) is 503 x 5m unimpedded spaces ie not > adding up 2 x 8m and claiming 3 5m parking spaces > but only claiming 2. This is planned to reduce to > 498 with lots of other changes in lines to provide > for extra short term visitor parking for the > shops. I'm hopeful officers will find a little > more parking by removing the parking restrictions > where the no.37 bus stop was on Melbourne Grove > resulting in zero net change in local parking > space IF controlled parking is introduced. James, sorry but I don't agree with your answer and think you're wrong. Paul Gellard showed me the figures at Dulwich libary last Saturday: YOUR survey showed that there were currently 691 "safe parking spaces" within the proposed CPZ zone. This figure was based on YOUR consultants counting real cars, NOT on a complicated calculation involving average car lengths. It was this figure (or the individual road values which add up to it) , I believe that has, in turn been used to help calculate percentages of commuters, etc (please correct if I'm wrong). I bleive your propsed CPZ allows for 507 resident speaces (although you say 503 above). If the 20% of commuters are taken off the 691, that leaves 552 spaces. This means that there will be c.45 (552-507) fewer spaces for residents under the propsed CPZ, even after we've got rid of the commuters. I have today written to Paul Gellard to ask him if the raw data from your consultation surevey will be made publically available, allowing independant analysis to be performed on it. This should prevent mistakes like this being made again

Garnwba Yes, it does, thats a good thing. It could also be used to fund schools, hospitals or lollipop ladies, which I persoanlly think all are great. But that isn't my point. This is my poimt: Many people have expressed a view that they see this as some form of tax, it's a "known" objection to CPZ's. Councillors have overcome this objection by telling these people that the money is ring-fenced when it clearly isn't. I think this is wrong. As I clearly said in my post: "I KNOW the council is struggling for money and I KNOW we've just seen very heavy public sector spending cuts and I KNOW the Money Has To Come From Somewhere....I just don't like being lied to, thats all"

bonaome, perfectly put To elaborate on the above, Southwark can (and do) use most of the "parking surplus" (profit) to fill pot-holes in the Road and other road maintaince, which would normally come out of our council tax, freeing up said council tac for whatever they want. In other words, they can spend it on ANYTHING indirectly In 2009/10, Southwark raised over ?2Million from parking permits and a total parking revenue of 11 million. The surplus from parking was ?3.4 Million ! (thats after they've paid all of the wardens, removal lorries and other costs) Of that ?3.4 million, ?2.6Million or (76%) of it was spent on Road maintainene, and ?400k on "network road managment" So, Southwark spends 88% of the parking profit on things that would normally be funded by other means NOT on lovely projects to make our lives better. A number of our local councillors have gone to great lenghths to tell us how this money is protected and can only be used to make our lives better, it isn't used to raise money for the council.................. in fact only ?276k of the surplus was spent on Road safety projects and ?80k on the abandoned vehicle service. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck........it's probably a duck And, before we have our local bastions of democarcy crying "we don't recognise these figures", they came from here: http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=15176 Edited to say: And before everybody jumps on me, I KNOW the council is struggling for money and I KNOW we've just seen very heavy public sector spending cuts and I KNOW the Money Has To Come From Somewhere....I just don't like being lied to, thats all