Zak

Frazer 71 The council apparently embarked on the CPZ consultation because of the level of "correspondence" they had recieved "in recent years " about parking problems - they obviously thought it was a big issue for the area as a whole. Out of 1159 households polled, only 84 supported the idea of a CPZ - that's around 7%. This doesn't suggest that there were hordes of people out there, feeling strongly about the issue. Any reasonable person will understand that the results of a poll, properly conducted by the local authority, cannot be overridden by the alledged results of some ad hoc door step canvassing. I think you're the one who doesn't get it......I'm fully aware of what amounts to "undemocratic" ....... and by the way, let's hear James Barber stand up for himself and justify his undemocratic behaviour - or are you James Barber?

Dear James, Apologies for returing to the question of the Grove Vale CPZ, but I attended the meeting of the Dulwich Community Council on Tuesday and I thought that that you and your Lib. Dem. colleagues adopted a stance that flew in the face of the view expressed by the majority of people who had been polled across the area in question. The Consultation had been for the Grove Vale Area and clearly was not being conducted on a street by street basis - in the same way that we vote for councillors on the basis of a ward and not street by street! Your attempt to distort the results of a properly conducted council consultation was shameful and betrayed a very strange approach to the concept of "democratic" - the flag under which you fly. I fear that you have done a great disservice to the local Lib Dem cause.

Forgive me for returning to James Barber but many of us will be meeting up with him tonight at the Community Council meeting. James, after weeks of posting I think you still don't get it. Southwark carried out an expensive Consultation Exercise around what they believed to be a burning issue. Out of 1159 people polled, only 84 ( 7%) came out in favour of a CPZ That?s the result. It?s been put to the vote. You can?t try and re-run it after the event in order to whip up support and claim that people actually meant to vote another way. Please stop trying to undermine the results of the consultation exercise. Some people will always be disappointed that their views didn?t win the day, but you have to face the facts: Southwark claim that there was high level of demand ( 44 contacts ?in recent years?! ) but still only 84 people out of 1159 voted in favour of a CPZ ? merely an extra 40!.

I wrote to Councillor Peter John on 2/1/12 (attached) asking if we can rely on him, as Leader of the Council, to honour the undertaking made in his open letter of 17/11/11 to residents, which stated ? Please be assured that if the objections outweigh support then the CPZ will not happen?. In the event only 7% of responses ( 84 out of 1159) supported the introduction of a CPZ. Here?s his reply. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ?Thanks for your letter. As you point out, the recommendations from council officers concerning this CPZ consultation will be discussed by Camberwell and Dulwich Community Councils in the next few weeks. Obviously this will present an opportunity for members to question officers about the proposals currently put forward, although I can see no reason why either Veronica or I would support any proposal which was at odds with the express wish of residents in the consultation. As we have stressed before, this is simply not a case of either "our" or "my" proposals for a CPZ, nor is it a question of some malevolent faceless force within the council seeking to "do down" residents at this difficult financial time in order to balance the books - this is not Westminster! This consultation was the result of concerns raised by residents over a lengthy period of time. It is interesting to note for example, that in St Francis Road Veronica and I had received a petition calling for the introduction of a CPZ over a year ago, although the consultation has shown a clear majority of residents in that road actually opposed to any CPZ. That is the reason why consultations are carried out and underlines their real value. This is an Administration which does listen to residents and will continue to do so! With very best wishes for the New Year? Peter John ___________________________________________________________________ My two specific questions went unanswered, but as you can see he states: ?I can see no reason why either Veronica or I would support any proposal which was at odds with the express wish of residents in the consultation". Are you re-assured? .

Some of you might like to follow this up??? Councillor Peter John (South Camberwell Councillor & Leader of the Council) wrote to residents on 17th November and stated ?Please be assured that if the objections outweigh support, then a CPZ will not happen?. (see attached copy) Looking at the recommendations contained in the Officers? report (see below, it seems that despite the majority of people having expressed their opposition to the proposed CPZ, there is still a move to introduce a modified CPZ of some kind - which if you were a cynic, then you might see as the thin end of the wedge. Anyone who agrees with the analysis below, might also like to contact him and suggest that as Leader of the Council, he honours his undertaking to bow to the views of the majority. ____________________________________________________________ 2nd January 2012 Your Ref: VW-654/ lj Dear Councillor John, Re: Grove Vale Area CPZ Consultation - Honouring Your Undertaking To Bow To The Views Of The Majority. I?m writing to you as my local councillor & Leader of Southwark Council in connection with the outcome of the recent Consultation around the introduction of a CPZ in Grove Vale and in light of the undertaking that you gave to residents in your letter of 17th November 2011. In your response to the many letters of concern that you obviously received about the Grove Vale CPZ Consultation, you replied by way of a ?standard? letter, jointly with Councillor Veronica Ward, in which you stated: : ?Please be assured that if the objections outweigh support, then a CPZ will not happen? 1. The Results of the Consultation The report of the Consultation has now been published and the headline findings are: Overall, only 7% of residents agree with the introduction of a CPZ in their street. - Out of a possible total of 1159 respondents, a mere 84 (7%) responded in favour of the introduction of a CPZ in their street ( Ref.p17 of the Consultation Report) - Of the total 241 who actually responded, out of the possible 1159, 59% (184) objected to the CPZ in their street & only 35% (84) were in favour (Ref. p17 of the Consultation Report) By any reckoning this must surely count as a ?no? vote and the objections outweighed support. The Consultation Report also records that in addition there were 9 petitions handed in from residents and businesses outside of the proposed CPZ, but potentially affected by it. These accounted for a total of 1855 signatories, of these 1826 (98%) recorded against the CPZ, 29 (2%) in favour. Surely another indication of the lack of support among East Dulwich residents ( Ref. Consultation Report p32). 2. The Recommendations Arising From The Consultation. The proposal as it stood was clearly rejected by a majority of residents, but Southwark appear now to have in effect ?moved the goal posts? seemingly to justify the introduction of some sort of a reduced CPZ. As you are aware, your officers have written a report for the Community Council Meetings on 10th January & 24th January suggesting three options for introducing a modified CPZ: ?Option 3. Introduce a one hour CPZ on an experimental basis in Derwent Grove only. Option 4. Introduce a one hour CPZ on an experimental basis in the following streets only: Derwent Grove, Elsie Road, Jarvis Road, Melbourne Grove, Oxonian Street, Tintagel Crescent and Zenoria Street. Option 5. Introduce a one hour CPZ on an experimental basis in the following streets only: Derwent Grove, Elsie Road and Tintagel Crescent? These three options actually relate to seven separate roads, five of which actually rejected the proposal for CPZ! In fact, out of 22 roads covered by the Consultation, only a mere 2 roads had a majority in favour of introducing a CPZ in their street ( Derwent Grove 19/12 & Tintagel Crescent 8/4) and even then it was only 27 people ( 23% ) who bothered to respond to the 117 consultation documents delivered in the two roads All other five roads rejected the proposal (Ref. table summarising results road by road p17) Why are five roads which registered their opposition to a CPZ in their street (and where only 13% of respondents were in favour), now included in recommendations 4 and 5, when you assured us that ?if the objections outweigh support, then a CPZ will not happen?? In light of the above, I?d like your reassurance on two issues. Namely that: 1. As my local Councillor and Leader of the Council you will honour your undertaking (?Please be assured that if the objections outweigh support, then a CPZ will not happen?) in light of only 7% of residents supporting the proposal & 2. You and your colleagues will accordingly not pursue Recommendations 3-5 for what will surely appear to most people as a cynical attempt to introduce a CPZ via the backdoor, in the face of overall opposition to your proposals. Since your letter of 17/11/11 was addressed to your constituents at large, I?m copying this letter to other recipients and interested parties. I look forward to receiving your assurance that you will abide by the results of your own exercise in local democracy. Yours sincerely,

Well spotted Ali. There's a programme on BBC 1. TV tonight ( "Inside Out London" ) at 7.30pm which looks at the impact of CPZs and the parking charges that they generate. Sounds like it's not for the squeamish"! Below is the text of the article apearing in tonight's Evening Standard in advance of the programme. Let's just be grateful that we don't live in Islington with permits at ?391! - see below. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Evening Standard West End Final edition P18: "The price of parking permits in London has soared in the past three years, an investigation revealed today. Campaigners labelled the council charges a "poll tax" for car owners, with fees going up by as much as 150 per cent in some boroughs. It follows a huge backlash against Westminster City Council's plan to scrap free evening and Sunday afternoon parking in the West End. The new report, by the BBC's Inside Out London programme, claims the average cost of a permit has risen by an inflation-busting 26 per cent in three years, while a visitor permit has gone up 42 per cent. In the past five years, 127 new controlled parking zones have been created. Hillingdon created the most, with 34. More than ?186million has been raised from permits since 2008, with Wandsworth council making the most, at ?25million. A day's permit rose from ?1 to ?4 in Barnet this year, while residents' permits jumped from ?40 to ?100 per car. Lewisham residents' permits doubled to ?120 last year, while Islington permits jumped from ?200 to ?391. AA president Edmund King said: "Parking is becoming the new poll tax. It appears car owners are being attacked from all sides - whether they're residents, visitors, shoppers or theatregoers." Town hall officials deny that money raised from the increased cost of parking is used to subsidise other work. Lorna Reith, Haringey's deputy leader, said: "We are legally obliged to use it first of all to cover the cost of a parking scheme, and then we are allowed to spend it on other transport matters. "We are not allowed to take it and spend it on social workers or other areas of the council's work." Inside Out London will be shown on BBC1 tonight at 7.30.

Does anyone know anything about the ?20,000 contribution to the CPZ consultation from the developer involved in redeveloping the Garden Centre into 21 flats? It appears in the Planning Report to Southwark ( Application 11-AP-0024 re 18-22 Grove Vale SE22 8EF ) which was approved on 19th July 20011. Paragraph 75 of the report states that ? the developer has agreed to contribute towards a review of the need for a CPZ , including consultation of existing residents and businesses. The contribution is limited to ?20,000? Two local councillors voted in favour of the application, one of whom was James Barber I?ve seen no reference to this so far and I find it very strange that a developer should be offering to pay for this sort of activity. What?s been going on? Furthermore - wait for it ? this development of 21 flats ( 5x1 bed, 11x2 bed, 4x3 bed) is being presented as a ?car free development? (para 75 again) ?The applicant assumes that in view of the proximity to the East Dulwich train station and bus stops residents will be less likely to want to own a vehicle? Para 75 again - Really? How likely is that and how could it be enforced! So what role has this planning application played in fuelling the CPZ consultation? . Can anyone explain?

The pelican crossing on Grove Vale (which had an island in the middle) is now a puffin crossing (!) with no island, but with a reduced width and a speed hump. I wonder if people feel safer as a result of the make-over or do they feel rather exposed in the absence of any kerbs or railings?

CPZ Objector Petitions: Logistics I know it's late in the day but...... I?ve spoken to Paul Gillard at Southwark Council who has explained how petitions detailing opposition to the CPZ should be submitted to Southwark ( see below). It would be a good idea to co-ordinate the submission of petitions and make sure that they all go to him in time to be included in the report that he will be writing ( he's the officer writing the report for the Community Council) The volume of objections is going to be crcial. ?He suggests that petitions can scanned in and sent to him at [email protected] Make sure you indicate the road(s) to which they relate and that there is no duplication. ?The council are willing to take into account the views of those in roads likely to be affected by the CPZ, as well as the views of those in the CPZ itself. *To try and make sure that there is a central record a gmail address has been set-up at [email protected] . if everyone copies their petitions to this address then it?s possible to make sure that they?re accessible, held together centrally and don?t simply disappear into the council ! . *Finally, if anyone feels able to organise a last minute petition in a road not covered to date, then that would be great.

As a matter of interest do we know where James Barber lives? Does he live in Elsie Road?

Peckham Boy & First Mate are both right. What Southwark need to know is that the magoritry of people are simply opposed to a CPZ. When I visited the exhibition at Southwark libary the Southwark Officer told us that the Bermondsey proposed CPZ was "defeated" by virtue of the number of people who signed petetions opposing it. It seems that if we want to defeat this proposal it''s going to be about mobilising a majority of the people affected -by the way I was told that they would take into account opposition expressed by people outside of the proposed CPZ who feel they would be adversely affected. Don't be drawn into James Barbar's suggestion to replicate the consultation - that's just likley to complicate things and provide data for more stats around preferences. If the magority of people's preference is "no CPZ" then we need to mobilse people to just let them know that.! m

There's only one direction in which pasrking fees will go once a CPZ is installed and that's up! Whether or not it's before 2014 is academic. Everyone knows that council's are strapped for cash and CPZs are a godsend and a cash cow!

I wrote earlier today about someone who is co-ordinating the collection of signatures from those opposing the CPZ in surrounding roads. Her post appears below and if anyone wants to take on any other roads, then I suggest you contact her. You can scroll up to her message on 25/10 @08.22 and PM her. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________- Ris2011 Wrote: 25/10/2011 08:22 ------------------------------------------------------- As noted on my previous post we are collecting signatures from the surrounding roads of the CPZ to show Southwark that many people in East Dulwich object to this proposal. Thus far i have had volunteers (including myself) to go around the following roads: hinckley gowlett keston Nutfield Archdale Frogley Northcross Oglander Road If you live on a street affected and want to stop southwark getting this proposal through please PM me and i will send you the template. Thanks

News from the Exhibition at Grove Vale Library. We went to the exhibition today and had the chance to talk to three officers, all of whom are wedded to the idea of "needing to manage kerb space" in the Borough. There were a couple of things that they had to say, that forum readers will find interesting: * When quizzed about exactly why Southwark have intitiated this particular consultation about bringing in a CPZ, they explained that it was as a result of the number of people who had been in touh with the council about parking problems. When pressed on how many people that was, we were told it was around 50 over a period of 3 or 4 years! So few - and they didn't even seem to know if they were all diferent people! So you now know that it's nothing to do with their looking for an opportunity to generate a new source of revenue! * They went on to explain that if enough people were to object to the proposal,then it wouldn't be implemented. They cited a recent consultation in Bermondsey where they'd had a petition against the CPZ with over 1,000 signatures and they subsequently abandoned the planned CPZ So above all. if you don't want a CPZ then it seems that one fruitful strategy is to ensure that there are as many people objecting to it as possible - and it shouldn't be left up to Southwark keep count of the objections! There needs to be an independent public record. Elsewhere there's a post listing the roads where a petition is going round. Those of us who object, need to make sure that all affected roads are covered and that the signed petitions are centrally collated. If you think your road isn't covered then Email the person ( scroll up) who is co-ordinating it. Petitions often don't seem to work, but it seems that this is one situation in which they might.

It's true that the traffic on Grove Vale needed slowing down, but this scheme seems flawed in a number of respects and by all accounts it's costing something like ?500k! As far as the fatality to which Andrew 1011 refers, it was a guy careering down Dog Kennel Hill at around 4am in the morning - probably the worse for wear - not some happless pedestrian. The people now most at risk are going to be those in ambulances making their way to KK Hospital via the speed table - those drips and oxygen cannisters will go flying! Up until now it's been the only hump/bump free main road to the hospital and I wonder if Southwark took that into account when they dreamt it up. Just wait for the Health Authority to demand its removal!

Of course tt's all part of the wonderful mega expensive traffic calming excercise that's been going on for months along Grove Vale. It's not finished yet and they've still got to close the road to entirely re-surface it - but will it actually work in the end? I've been watching lorries, buses, fire engines and ambulances going over it today and it seems to be more of a hazard than anything else Just pray that you never get taken to Kings College Hospital in an ambulance via Grove Vale - going over that bump is going to be enough to finish off a few people!

All discussion of Christmas should be banned before 1st December and there should be a law against those dreadful shops that are open all year selling Christmas stuff. Next thing, someone will want one to open on Lordship Lane!

It's all to do with slowing down the traffic along Grove Vale. It's true that some people do race along and that the buses ( double deckers in particular) hurtle round the bend by the old pelican crossing - I wouldn'tlike to be sitting in one of those front rooms by the bend - but are all these works really called for and will they work? Narrowing the road in the way in which they're doing it, is certainly going to slow everyone down - possibly to a standstill! The word "overkill" comes to mind - not to mention "overspend" - I think there's mention on the other thread of the whole thing costing several hundred thousand pounds!.

What do people think of Southwark Council's attempts to support the market? All credit for closing off the road on Saturdays, but it's a shame that they have to do it with "road works" signs rather than ones which announce the presence of a street market! It all feels a bit shambolic. Also, from talking to traders it appears that they're been forced to turn their stalls around to face onto the road, when they'd prefer to remain facing out onto the pavement. If Southwark want to try and create a market thoroughfare, then surely they need to put some more resources into it. Bring on Mary Portas!

Did anyone else see a buzzard at around 8pm tonight? It was soaring in the sky somewhere roughly over Bellenden Road, at the Choumert Road end. Whatever next!

Shelter gets a mention above. It's one of those large national charities that has made a fine art of fundraising. Last year it raised around ?25m from the public. All the people who work there (around 1,000!)are totally committed and it provides very good housing aid, research & lobbying, but it doesn't actually house anyone. A bit of a surprise to some people. It's ironoc that it's often the smaller less known local charities that actually deliver the frontline services. Giving "local" is often a good option.

My apologies to anyone who would like this to have appeared on another thread or under another title. The reason that I made this fresh post was to alert as many people as possible to a new burglary, hoping that it might lead to someone getting caught and/or prevent another break in. The Forum is a great way of keeping people informed of what's happened and so far there have been over 900 views - fantastic. It may or may not mean somenoe gets caught or avoids being broken into, but knowing what's going on must surely help. I suggested to the police that they should look at the Forum, but the guy looked at me blankly! They need to take a leaf out of Barry Jones book (the station master). He's used the Forum to great effect.

Another burglary took place last night in Oglander Road at the Grove Vale end. I understand that they got in through a window while the inhabitants were asleep and left without being detected. It's likely that they made their way to the house via the gardens between Oglander Road and Ondine Road. Another reason to be vigilant. If you see anything suspcious, then call the police.

Has anyone else noticed the vulnerable looking bloke in the wheelchair who seems to have recently appeared around Lordship Lane? I first saw him about a week ago, quite late at night, near Belair Park and then again in the rain near Cafe Nero. He may well live somewhere locally and just like a bit of fresh air, but on the few occasions I've seen him I wouldn't have expected someone in his position to be out and about.

The new store has now been been going for a few weeks...... what do people think now that they've had a chance to get into gear ? The co-op seems to have a really good vision and everyone can become a member, but is it better than what we had before with Somerfield?