Bobby P

> On Melbourne grove at the moment we have parking > restriction signs up (as the council haven't > removed them yet despite the parking restrictions > having ended ages ago) - this has meant that > commuters have not parked on the street whilst us > canny residents in the know have... parking has > been blissful, easy and perhaps a real insight > into what living in a CPZ would be like. ...yes, thereby clogging up Derwent, Elsie etc. more than usual. It has a knock on effect, you see, which is why a CPZ won't help - unless it incorporates the whole of ED. And I personally think that would be a great shame.

gsirett, sillywoman et al - great job getting this many signatures in such a short space of time. fredricketts, you should add yours as they are looking at them kinda now.... I think, irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the CPZ, the Council does have to properly consult all those affected, i.e. at the very least all those in the immediate area, before they can in any way claim they have a mandate to continue. And I think this petition shows it. Imagine how many signatures this would have had if people had actually been informed and there were more than 4 days to collect responses. It is strong evidence of the weight of local opinion and the need for a proper consultation...

Re. the online petition on Southwark's site, I heard back from Southwark Council, who have emailed those who tried to set one up to ask if they would mind combining their petitions into one against the CPZ. I replied yes, and apparently if the others do, this will then go live as one petition. Obviously it's beyond the deadline for Southwark's "consultation", but as many who will be affected only heard of this in some cases in the last week, I see no reason why we shouldn't continue to voice our (in this case anti) feelings. The fact that the original consultation was not circulated to so many affected people - and the number who have signed the physical petition in such a short space of time - surely means that further challenges and petitions should continue to be heard. Otherwise, what is the point of the meeting in January we are all told to attend to discuss the CPZ? Surely that can't just be for us to rubber stamp a fait accompli...

I'll defend to the death kr988's and everyone else's right to express pro-CPZ views here (though my personal opinion is that anyone who actively votes to impose a CPZ on themselves is barking mad - a view based primarily on my experience of CPZ-living and the reduction in quality of life thereof). But each to their own, I assume those voting FOR have had a different (positive) experience with being in a CPZ in the past, which would explain their disagreement with people like me, who have encountered the opposite. But clearly everyone has a right to express views strongly here. Those on the immediately adjacent roads to the proposed CPZ should clearly have been consulted by the Council. The fact that they weren't is cause for review of the whole process, in my opinion.

WHERE TO SIGN THE PETITION only a petition stands any chance of stopping this. It needs to be presented by Friday You can sign our petition to stop the CPZ at all of the following local businesses (they?ve all got copies of the petition sheets) Please, please can as many people try to sign before Thursday, as the petition has to be presented on Friday. So, make sure you stop in for a drink/plant/asprin /newspaper/paintbrush on the way home tonight and SIGN THE PETITION And please encourage as many people to do the same. SARP Newsagents (on corner Grove Vale & Melbourne Grove, near station) The Vale Pub, Grove Value Shauns DIY, Grove Value Dulwich Garden Centre Mark & Son Newsagent, Grove Vale (Next to Shauns DIY) Petals (clothes shop), Melbourne Grove Therapy, Melbourne Grove Angel Upholstery, Melbourne Grove Ronnies Supermarket, East Dulwich Grove Dolphin Dry Cleaners, East Dulwich Grove (corner with Glengarry) Please note - as well as signing the petitions, don't forget to fill in the Southwark Consultation here (click on "We invite you to submit your comments online now"). [www.southwark.gov.uk]

I don't think the arguments either for or against on this board have been out of order. It is simply people engaging in lively democratic debate about an issue they feel passionately about, one way or the other. If anyone thinks that this debate has been "nasty" or "personal", they should check out the House of Commons for a day. Democracy in action, thanks to the ED Forum.

Fascinating exchange with Councillor Barrie Hargrove above. Councillor Hargrove rather gives the game away in his replies, namely that his strategy of only informing a select number of residents (those living on the proposed CPZ roads) is quite deliberate. This undemocratic consultation is what he and Southwark have primarily been accused of... "any re-drawing of the boundaries which results in an outcome which(inevitably - either for or against) residents within the curren consultation area disagree with will be very vulnerable to accusation of tampering." When he says "were we to extendthe boundaries of the consultation beyond the vicinity of East Dulwich Train Station we would be drawn into a massive consultation for a very large swathe of the area, particularly Dulwich, which would be unpopular and completely unaffordable, especially by a Council that has just received the largest cuts in living memory to its Central Government grant", he is also admitting the real reason behind this CPZ being introduced: the cash-strapped Council. Of course, he turns it into a straw man argument against a more balanced consultation (or even one that residents are actually made aware of...) Finally, he admits that the CPZ is "particularly contraversial, fuelled to someextent by certain commentators on the East Dulwich Forum" - well thanks for the recognition, Barrie, and thanks to this forum for allowing proper local democracy to flourish, despite the Council's best efforts to hide its proposals from the majority affected by this. We wouldn't have even heard about this CPZ scheme without the ED Forum.

At risk of repeating myself, here's what I wrote to [email protected], [email protected] [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] - it's important to email these people as well as venting spleen here. And of course to sign the petition, which I did this afternoon at the Hardware Store... Dear.... I wish to register my strong objection to both the proposal for a Controlled Parking Zone put forward by Southwark Council on various roads, and to the manner in which the "consultation" on this scheme has been carried out. I live on Melbourne Grove and own one car, so my road borders the proposed zone. A few points: - Southwark Council did not consult widely enough on this. It made no attempt to inform residents in neighbouring roads, so that they could have a say on the issue. Clearly Southwark should have informed and consulted not only those who live on roads within the proposed CPZ, but on roads adjacent to them. This is simply common sense, as any displacement of cars to neighbouring roads affects those residents. - Instead, Southwark did NOT inform us, and we found out about this massively disruptive scheme only by complete chance, through reading the East Dulwich Forum. That in itself in my opinion makes the Council's artificially limited "consultation" highly undemocratic and potentially illegal. - Southwark has a policy favouring CPZ's. In the consultation documents on Southwark's website, the alleged advantages of this CPZ are listed, but no disadvantages. This is clearly attempting to bias local residents, who may not have had the unpleasant experience of living under a CPZ before, into voting for it. - In addition to this attempt to bias the results of the consultation, the wording of the Council's online survey question 11 is biased (where the only two choices given are for a whole day zone, or a 10-2 restriction, and one cannot select "no zone" as a option). It's true that on an earlier question, one can vote "no", but it was clear that the wording of question 11 led some who are against the CPZ to select one of the restriction options, as they thought they had no choice on this question but to tick one box to move to the next question. (See ED Forum for examples of this happening). As this makes the survey results misleading (possibly deliberately, but certainly de facto), it must invalidate the survey. Question 11 definitely skews respondents towards selecting at least one type of CPZ. - The vast majority of ED Forum posters are against the CPZ. A petition against the CPZ has been started by some local residents as a result of seeing this on the ED Forum, but it has started late in the process, as most people were, and still are, completely unaware of the so-called "consultation", having had no official correspondence about it from Southwark Council. - Figures from Southwark Council's research have been posted on the ED Forum by James Barber and others. We also found out (again, only via the ED Forum, not from Southwark Council) about the Grove Vale Library CPZ exhibition on the Saturday 5th November. Looking at the figures for numbers of residents' cars and for numbers of "commuter" (i.e. non-resident) cars, and calculating the reduction in the number of parking spots a CPZ would bring, it seems that there will actually be less parking for residents on the zoned roads than before. - This being the case, and if Southwark's own figures on take-up are correct, then there would be displacement of residents' cars to the neighbouring roads. So, not consulting those on neighbouring roads is disingenuous. Clearly, any intelligent resident will see that the Council's plan and intention is to later consult residents on the neighbouring roads, hoping thereby to get a "yes" vote and expanding the CPZ. This will continue indefinitely as residents' cars are displaced further, with less available spaces, until East Dulwich is entirely zoned. - It is disingenuous because previous surveys of the area found a clear majority against implementation of CPZs. By doing a deliberately skewed consultation this time, on a limited area, with no mention of the downsides, Southwark clearly hopes to get a CPZ by stealth and thence to expand it. This is not surprising in these cash-strapped times, as the Council does, based on their own figures, make plenty of money out of CPZs. - For the record, living on Melbourne Grove, I have never encountered a parking problem, and can 95% of the time park within sight of my house. And, while this is only the view of one resident, if residents on the roads nearest the station really had a problem, they could cross Grove Vale and park their cars on my stretch of road, then walk 2 minutes back to their houses. It is unrealistic to think either that they should currently have the right to park directly outside their houses in a Zone 2 road near public transport, and it is equally unrealistic of them to believe that a CPZ will make any difference, based on the Council's numbers. It will merely mean a shift of cars onto neighbouring roads, which is clearly what the Council wishes to happen. - It is one of the pleasures of living on East Dulwich to have this freedom, NOT to be taxed and controlled by the Council, for what we currently enjoy for free. Having lived in a road near a tube station which became a CPZ in Camden Borough, its introduction actively diminished the quality of life there, while making absolutely no difference to parking difficulty, but cost lots of money and time in challenging wrong tickets, checking on one's vehicle several roads away to make sure bays hadn't been suspended, suffering hassle and massive expense with workmen and visitors (including aged parents). In short, it made London living much more stressful. There is no need to similarly destroy people's quality of life in East Dulwich, nor to stealth tax those who can certainly not afford it in the current climate; and so I strongly oppose the CPZ and the way the Council is attempting to introduce it so it grows incipiently. I will certainly not be voting for anyone on the Council who supports this CPZ, or tries to implement it in this undemocratic way.

The figures are the ones that were put forward by the Council at the Grove Vale Library consultation. I fail to see how one cannot "recognise" them. Off out to sign the petition now.

Hi James Can you comment on gsirett's research from the Library, which he actually did with the Southwark rep, using the Council's own statistics. Does it not seem to completely undermine your assertion that "it's clear from the evidence that controlled parking will resolve the parking pressures for residents in the proposed streets"? In the face of gsirett's research (quoted again below), does your statement above not seem entirely baseless, contrary to what the evidence shows and therefore misleading? gsirett..... (I did the following calculation with the nice chap from Southwark in the library yesterday) There are currently safe 691 parking spaces available in the proposed CPZ area (although, amazingly, they did not have this figure anywhere. I had to work it our with the help of the very nice council chap) I think the figure being banded around is is c.20% commuters (although, according to said nice chap, that does also include the girls working in GM?s, some of the people working at the hospital, and the nice man from Caf? Mirto)........so 20 % of 691 is 138. Equals 138 commuters. This leaves (stay with me on this)....... 553 residents are currently able to park in the zone. The scheme proposes 507, yes you read it right, 507 residents spaces THAT IS A REDUCTION IN 46 PARKING SPACES FOR RESIDENTS. Residents of proposed CPZ area.......still sure you?re lives are going to get better?

First mate, I think a petition on here would be fine, but I also think that they will quite likely ignore it, judging by James Barber's comments. He even said that the official Southwark Council online petition wouldn't hold much weight (so why have this facility then?). Basically they will only really consider door to door petitions, which some are doing to their great credit. Obviously this is way more time consuming for some on here to do (which is why I think the Council proponents of this are betting that most residents won't have time to organise it, and discounting the "easier" online route in advance), but anyone who has the time to petition their road should really aim to do so. Oh, and really revealing information from the Library exhibition, gsirett. Well done for taking the time to do the figures. It just proves, using their own numbers, what we've been saying all along as the "evidence" has come in. The CPZ will actually REDUCE spaces for residents of the affected roads. Why James keeps saying the opposite in the face of this evidence beggars belief.

I've attempted to set up an E-petition against the CPZ on Southwark Council's site. The petition has to be approved by the Council, so am waiting to hear back on whether they approve it. If they do approve it, I will publish details here so that those on here opposed can sign (and pass to others). If they don't approve it, I guess I will wonder why... James, I imagine that as this is Southwark's official petition form, this would hold some weight if we manage to circulate widely enough and get enough signatures. I'm interested in hearing on this forum about a physical petition going round doorsteps (on neighbouring roads too). Haven't seen sight of this and not sure who's doing it, but it is a very good idea. If Zak's excellent report from the Grove Vale meeting is correct, a) the Council officers there were clearly in favour, b) their reasons for trying to implement this (i.e. the number of resident complaints about parking) were extremely shaky, and c) a petition against the CPZ which gains lots of traction will actually be taken into account and could prevent it.

Arrived home this afternoon (Melbourne Grove, just outside the CPZ-to-be) after a mega grocery shop, car full and in need of unloading. Unusually there was no space outside my home (9 times out of 10, one can park almost directly outside). So.... I had to park way off in the adjacent road (Tell Grove), and unload 18 heavy bags of shopping quite a distance to my front door. Back and forth, back and forth. And then it started to pour with rain. Got soaked. Annoying and no fun. The point, of course, is that I'd rather deal with this minor irritation a thousand times over than to live under a CPZ regime. Been there, done that. The sheer unpleasantness of the stress of CPZ life for me and visitors (not counting the cost) still chills me to remember. What I can't understand about those in favour is why they don't seem to realise this. I can only presume they are wholly ignorant of the stresses of CPZ living, in which case there are countless posts on here and previous threads from those with CPZ experience which people can read to inform themselves. I really can't see any other explanation for their point of view. It really is equivalent to voting to pay someone to deliberately come and decrease your quality of life. I can't believe such a large majority here are arguing "against" without a rationale: clearly, many have also "been there, done that" and found ED a blessed relief from it. In the comparison between a) having to park on neighbouring roads sometimes, or even often, and b) having to pay a large tax for much the same, with horrendous over-zealous Council enforcers clamping or removing your legally permitted car on a regular basis - there surely is no contest.

Very good post gmackenney, summarising a lot of the argument well. Just a small point on the current parking situation. Melbourne Grove (station stretch) has parking completely suspended at present, and has been for many days, owing to a diversion for buses. So there's NO parking on there for residents at all currently, which will squeeze parking on neighbouring roads (Derwent, Elsie etc.) more than usual. So I'm not surprised that it's bad now. If I were cynical, I'd say politically it's a jolly good time to have a parking consultation for people living on these roads (ending on Nov 11th), whilst the situation is at its most acute...

All for some sort of action/petition against this thing (which affects the whole area), away from this bulls*** survey. Anyone know how such a thing would best be delivered most effectively so the Council took notice? It's interesting that there are people posting now who live on the roads nearest the station to say that while parking there is not easy, it's not impossible (as some would have us believe) and you tend only to need look a little further up the road, in most cases. People who want to park directly outside their own front doors on these roads will not find the CPZ helping them to do this at all.

Sliding doors, thanks for the honest posting about your change of views after looking at the issue more closely. Needless to say, I think you've come to the correct decision. While I don't doubt that parking is sometimes less than ideal on the roads near the station, I think there's ample evidence on this long, analytical and well argued thread to indicate that a CPZ will not be the solution. I hope others will ultimately vote with their heads and not with their hearts.

Looking at the posts on here, it's clear we have some bright, reasoned people making some extremely logical arguments about the effect of the proposed CPZ, based on the evidence. The majority of these posts are naturally against. It is true, if one can be bothered to look at the documents James posted, that the Council's own research and figures do NOT support the fact that the roads are inundated with commuters, and clearly show that the reduction in spaces a CPZ will bring will not therefore improve the lives of those on the roads nearest the station. Just for clarity again, I live on the part of Melbourne adjacent to the zone (and have one car). I therefore walk down Melbourne (station end), Derwent, Elsie etc. regularly. Since this issue raised its ugly head on this forum before, I've always made a point of counting the number of free spaces on these roads during various times of the day, and (while I know it is anecdotal) have never seen these roads 100% parked up, i.e. there has always been at least one space, usually two or three available to park in, even during "commuter parking" hours. And I've looked a lot. Taking aside the issue that those who choose to live on houses very near a station in Zone 2 should really expect parking to be harder than those who live a long walk away, it does beg the question in my mind about the second type of posting on here, less reasoned and more emotional, from people who say they can't park outside their houses with shopping or children. What did they expect when they moved into these particular roads? It really is hard to fathom. Perhaps they should have bought/rented houses away from the station, where the rest of us really have no problem parking. Perhaps they don't look very far up the road - or on the next road - for their parking, or aren't too good at getting their family tractors into the 2-3 spaces that always seem to be available on these roads whenever I've walked down them. The knock-on affect of their hope - and it is an utopian and vain hope - to be able to park much closer to their doors is that Southwark will get to start ruining ED with CPZ's, and thus it does affect every poster on this forum. The third type of post, from James, is politically motivated (views on car drivers coming to ED or not etc., concerns about what constitutes strictly "legal" parking, tales of how stringent the enforcement was when he lived in a CPZ told as if this were an admirable or noble thing) and he so clearly wants this to happen (along with his Council colleagues) that it is hard to have a rational argument. While I admire that he posts here and tries to engage, he only has to look at the conclusions that are easily drawn from his own posted research documents (not to mention plain old common sense) to realise that the CPZ will be an expensive disaster for current residents both in and out of the proposed zone. On the other hand, I guess the Council needs the cash, so....

People in the affected roads who are voting for a CPZ: Please be aware that it will NOT help your parking problem, based on the very valid experience of those who have lived in roads which have been converted to CPZ while they lived there. In such cases (mine included) the parking situation was every bit the same as before the CPZ was introduced (for all the reasons stated owing to reductions of space, number of vehicles per household). In Camden, where it happened to me, we STILL had to drive around several neighbouring roads to park our cars. The only difference (setting aside the quite substantial cost to each resident) was that if we parked several roads away when the CPZ came into force, we had to walk over to that road every day to check that the bay hadn't been suspended and our car towed by the Council. We never worried about that when the roads were all free parking, and believe me, it added plenty of stress to living in the area (have you tried getting you car back from a pound? No fun at all, and they ALWAYS insist you pay hundreds up front and challenge later). So please do think hard about whether you want this. It's not selfish to point out the truth that this is primarily a tax, with very little benefit the people it's supposed to help. I hesitate to use the terms 'turkeys' and 'Christmas', because it would be insulting. But if I were uncertain about it, I would heed some of the "experts" who have had the unpleasant experience of living under CPZ regimes and enforcement before.

Yes, John, possibly illegal, but they would probably argue that they WON'T count it, if the person has ticked "no" on the previous question, so it would be hard to prove. However, they wouldn't have put it in in this way if they didn't have intent to use it. It's no accident, that's for sure.

I left mine blank and was able to continue to the next question somehow. Maybe varies based on browser. Anyhow, one certainly shouldn't tick either box if against!

Please, those of you (the majority it seems) against the CPZ, do fill out the online survey, or no one will know of your opposition and the CPZ will definitely go ahead. But PLEASE be careful when filling it in, as the Council has deliberately set a bear-trap which some (see calculus above) have fallen into. It's hardly their fault - but there's a question on the survey about whether you want a 10-12 or a full day restriction. There's NO option to say neither, and the way it's laid out seems to force you to tick one box or another. PLEASE don't tick either box if you don't want a CPZ, or your vote will be counted "FOR". Very sneaky, highly underhand, and like this whole survey, thoroughly undemocratic, but there you have it. calculus, you could perhaps email the Council and individual Councillor addresses given and complain that you meant to vote "No", I'd suggest. I fear there will be many more who have been tricked into doing what you did.

Well thanks for the response James, and I hope you do catch me in, as I'm very interested to hear your views on this (I think you know mine!). However, apparently like many others, I find a lot of fault in the way the consultation is being handled, and the online documentation. The fact that I found out about it via this forum and not through any official correspondence from the Council through my letterbox was a bad start, and the slant of the information in the online documents is pretty weasily in its wording and decidedly one-sided in what it chooses to leave out. As one who has lived in roads which were turned into CPZ's before, I can only say it made no difference to parking spot availability for the residents, but made a huge difference in cost and stress. An extra annual tax and an oppressive regime of enforcement, but no extra benefit to the residents. I believe introducing a CPZ here in E.Dulwich would be actively taking away from one of the things that makes the area so attractive and liveable, and would be a detriment to people's financial well-being and mental health! (I'm actually serious about the latter, as I well remember the horrible stress of having my car removed on several occasions in my last CPZ with no notice and for no reason and struggling to get it back: being in the right was no help, even though begrudgingly the towing fees were refunded months later). (On an unrelated note, I have to agree with other posters here, by the way, that the streets in question, including Melbourne Grove, are filthy with litter at the moment - have the sweeps gone on strike?).

The online form for the survey is definitely "fixed", as one or two others have pointed out. There is a question asking if people want a) a 10-12 restriction, or b) a full day restriction, but no option c) of 'none'. It is a standalone question, in that the format dictates that even if you oppose the CPZ, you must put at least down, so encouraging even opposers to put the least worst answer in. The Council will then have the 'votes' they need for the 10-12 option, which is clearly what they intend to bring in initially. James, it is really quite insulting to pretend that this is NOT a foregone conclusion, when all of your own remarks and the phrasing of the survey documents clearly demonstrate to any intelligent person where the Council's views lie (unsurprisingly). The pernicious waffle about which residents' opinions are "more equal than others" is Newspeak of the highest order, as the CPZ so clearly affects both targeted roads and their immediate neighbours. And the verbal straw poll you claim to have conducted on the doorsteps (even though I am one of those you claim to have knocked on on Saturday afternoon) is utterly worthless, as you should know, in democratic terms. By quoting these supposed remarks, you are merely campaigning on behalf of the CPZ which the Council only wants to introduce as a revenue-making enterprise (and claiming otherwise is simply dishonest).

Didn't visit me (in on Sat afternoon) at No.62 even though he claims 1-63. And yes, I imagine the questions were as disingenuous and misleading as those in the online survey - something along the lines of "would you like to be able to park more easily?".

Those who think that they will suddenly be able to park right outside of their doors if a CPZ is introduced on their road are delusional. The parking problem will remain, with reduced spaces as road markings/bays are put in. The only difference is they will be paying a minimum of ?125 a year for nothing. Trust those who have lived under CPZ's - it's always the same.