James Barber

gsirett Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jasmina Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I live on Tintagel Crescent and I'm against the > > CPZ scheme. My neighbours that I've spoken to > are > > also against the scheme. I'm wondering if > there > > is anyone on Tintagel or Elsie Road who > supports > > this scheme? > > You need to speak to councillor barber, he knows > loads of people who support the scheme. Apparently Hi grisett, I think I wrote very early on in this thread before the consultation results that from my colleagues and I experience of knocking on doors - and we asked open non leading question about what people thought about controleld parking - that clear majority on Derwent Grove, majority on Melbourne and 50:50 on Elsie. In the last 6 weeks I've had 21 initial emails about the CPZ 6 against and 15 in favour. PM messages through this forum roughly 50:50. And about half a dozen CPZ phone calls asking for advice about how to get people responding for or against the proposals. BUT I've had over 100 other emails about non CPZ subjects over the same period and they typically keep me running at around 100 emails a day of email traffic following casework up etc.

I wonder what people think of Scottish independeance? Should only the people of Scotland (Derwent Grove) get to vote or should the whole UK (grisett and co) decide on Scottish independence. Do people think that more than 50% of the whole population should vote for independence of just a majority? Eitherway, it would be really appreciated if the CPZ thread could stay there.

Hi DJKQ, I agree. The consultation was of 22 streets and whether they wanted to have paid controlled parking or not and it was clear the consultation would be considered on a street by street basis. It also asked residents if they'd change their mind if a neighbouring street were to proceed. All the streets in South Camberwell ward were against. Currently I'm almost jealous of those Councillors. Nice at decision. Several street in East Dulwich ward were for or I vapour our if neighbouring street were planned to proceed - fear of displacement. So if it had been a referendum then yes a clear no result. So I hear loud cries of fowl from either camp - the no camp being clearly much larger and so far louder. If we vote no on Tuesday then residents on some sreets can legitimately claim the Consultation was rigged saying it said the results would be used on a street by street basis and that they hadn't been. Hi buddug, Are you really surprised that as an Easy Dulwich ward councillor I've had my constituents contacting me in the way and proportions described. Clearly email bag of other ward Councillors will have different proportions.

The keys are standard across Soutwark notice boards. So my guess is several hundred sets across Southwark. I explained ages ago that I took the first anti Southwark Council CPZ notice down. The notice boards are Southwark Council property. Currently the notice boards are left to locals to use. My fear then and still is that if anti Soutwark notices are placed then local discretion might be removed and our community and others would lose out and we might've need to submit em via some central Southwark Council function. If Southwark were to allow partial notices it would be legally required to ensure balance. The whole thing a minefield which is why after the first notice I'd hoped it wouldn't crop up again.

I've have not taken down any notices telling people about any community councils. I'm usually the one placing them. I did originally take down notices about the CPZ making wild assertions about Southwark Council - but it is a Southwark COuncil notice board and I don't want all material controlled by the press office if it ever discovered what had been put up. Throughout I have suggested people make their view known and attend the community councils - it was my request to cabinet cllr Barrie Hargrove that he allow community councils to review the officer papers and make their recommendations to him - which he kindly agreed to. Otherwise this would have been all decided by him in December. I get sent community council poster/notices by the committee chair and I place them when next passing notice boards. I also get frustrated at them being removed. I don't know who has the keys for them near Grove Vale. Also the locks on Melbourne Grove notice board appears to have been changed so I've not been able to place a community council poster their for some time.

Hi grisett, But you're a Village ward resident. I've had lots of East Dulwich ward residents and some businesses tell me they want controlled parking. I've had some say they don't. I've seen lots of comments on this forum but most of the East Dulwich ward residents who live on the conusltated streets I've spoken to say they're angry about the forum but didn't want to get tangled up in the CPZ thread.

Hi Eddie, The Labour party ran on no student fees but introduced them. At a national level in a coalition you don't get your whole manifesto implimented. And yes I will be attending the meeting and I have no intention of abstaining - I think I've abstained once in 6 years and that was at a main planning committee. Hi davidh, I think you're misrepresenting my email - feel free to post the whole email here with your original. Hi grisett, I think I was always going to offend you - even if I do vote NO on Tuesday. The consultation was clearly asking streets what they thought, it said the results would be analysed and reported on a street by street basis. It wasn't a referendum. Clearly all the roads consulted in South Camberwell said no so it was an easy vote to make. In many respects I wish we had the same consultation results in East Dulwich ward but we don't. SOme of our streets have said yes and others have said yes if a neighbouring street were to get controls. Someone/s have been dishonestly going around telling people parking meters are proposed for Lordship lane/North Cross Road - they're not. Others has been told controlled parking across all East Dulwich is proposed - it isn't. This smearing makes it hard to take into accoutn the petitions because we don't know whether they're about what people think is proposed or what is actually proposed. What I find disappointing is people with real problems have been lost in all this and no one is suggesting any other solution/s. As for Liberal Democrats. We have no whip on this or any other commmunity council decision. I'm reasonably sure Lib Dem Cllr Crookshank-Hilton will vote NO. The Village ward Tories I'm sure will vote NO because they have no streets involved and you've organised a petition against which they'd be sensible politically to follow. I'm sure if the situation was reversed they'd also be in a quandary to decide what's best. Politically the easy route would be to vote NO but I've knocked on all these East Dulwich doors many times and will be knocking in the future and I have to be able to explian my vote - not just say I felt bullied.

??

Hi Herrd, Which Piolice Neighbourhood Forum were you at? I was at East Dulwich one and don't recall it coming up and I was taking the minutes!

Hi ClareC, I think you mean north east Rodwell Road.

Blimey the-e-dealer, My point was that I sympathise with residents feeling frustrated at so many extra vehicles visiting when services at the church are on.

Call 020 7525 2000 to have them removed. I'll also raise it with the local Police at tonights East Dulwich Safer Neighbourhood Team Police meeting. They might know what this is.

The church building looks to predate motor cars. It would originally have a served a very local population who walked there.

Hi fazer71, gm99 and Ms B, I think this issue result from several changes. Since April litter picking is now meant to take place alternate days versus past daily. These litter pickers are meant to pick up any glass they come across. I've had two instances where residents have been able to prove the litter pickers haven't been doing their jobs. If you can provide several pictures of litter not being picked please do send it to me. Suc evidence is irrefutable and we can get things improved. The other factor is street sweeping which used to take place fortnightly changes to 4 weekly. So this other mechanism for fixing this is now much less frequent. And finally the new waste collections regime. I doubt that's making it worse as either a blue wheelie bin that gets tipped into the rubbish truck of a blue box/bag that gets empties. The old process of hand picking in theory should have been more prone to breakages. IF you see broken glass please report it via 020 7525 2000 or [email protected] and feel free to copy me. IF you can see litter generally isn't vanishing with 48hours please tell me. Hope this helps.

Why not go and ask them? I did this with a crew working on the pavement outside my house and it turned out to be some dodgy Virgin Media sub cotnractors. Dodgy in the sense it wasn't emergency works and they were not signing and barriering their partial road closure. When asked they packed up and went.

Hi DulwichFox, I think your fears are unfounded. I've seen an itemised report of issued tickets by category and I don't recall seeing any tickets numbers for that type of issue. We will have two crossings - one outside the Coop which is clearly them ost obvious required one. The second from The Bishop is partly ot help cross Lordship Lane but partly to put breaks inthe traffic allowing vehicles in and out of East Dulwich Grove and to make EDG crossing easier for pedestrians. Long story but the original proposal to have traffic lights at that junction would have meant much less parking which ED cllrs couldn't support to the degree required versus the 'benefits'. I proposed a zebra crossing to break up the flow. After several years council officers/contractors came up with a Puffin crossing and agreed probably the only way to achieve the aim without signalising the junction etc. Feel free to call me for fuller explanation. Hi eddie, I think the two will work well and actually are intended to achieve different things. See above also feel free to call me about them. Hi Ipool, I'll ask officers abotu your suggestion. Thank you. Hi TownleyGreen, Yes Labour have led the council since May 2010 but these crossings were started some years ago. I doubt Labour would have wanted to stop these crossings. Also a lot of background with officers leaving the council and compliants by ED cllrs upheld etc. Very sad its taken so long to happen but we're getting there. The Artfull Dogger. Haha. I needed that on a cold Monday morning.

Hi Lynne, I'm just back from weekend away which is a roundabout way of apologising for not responding sooner. I dn't know what the rules are but will find your email, forward it to the parking team and ask them and then respond to you. Hopefully will get an answer today or tomorrow. Hi Bellenden Belle, If the back room could still be booked it might be within the consent already given but it would be worth planning enforcement to review this business as gm99 has kingly suggested.

I've been told by one local shop keeper that Starbuck's are sniffing around Lordship Lane. BUT we have a limit on the number of non shops allowed to shops - ratio of 50:50 - as well as classes of use.

Hi buddug, Re reading your and dfazer71 posts on leaseholder housing management I'm unclear how I can address 13 years of past history. But I can help with the next tranche or work. You should have received an estimate of the next years work. If it looks odd please email me and well arrange for me to visit you.

Hi buddug, My family have a car. We avoid using it as much as possible but yes we own a car. My children are not quite old enough to have the sdame stamina for wlaking etc as me. I was responding to the assertion that cars are a necessity. Plenty of people locally find they are not. Whether this is an economic choice or other factor. A car for most costs around 1/2 to 1 working days work per week.

Hi buddug, Grove Vale new ponding/puddles. The contractors will be on site tomorrow or Friday. They will slightly adjust the levels of the footway and introduces small gulley.

Unrestricted parking provision results in Los Angeles style land use where most land is devoted to stationary parked cars. So paving over Peckham Rye isn't the answer. Cars a necessity? Half Southwark households exist without cars.

Derwent Grove street lights. Last night visual check of how many are not working. Officers amaxzed at how many not working for this lighting scheme installed in 2007. So they double checked all other local lighting schemes installed in 2007 and non have suffered a similar mass failure. Today lighting engineers will try and fix them. If any are related to the electricity supply then the monopoly provider will have to dig the street and that can take ages to organise (and no its not a dastardly plan related to controlled parking before anyone asks!).

My understanding is that under the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 if 2/3rds of qualifying flats in a property want to buy the freehold you legally can. Various rules about qualifying flats. I failed to buy freehold with adjoining flat due to the businesses below being more than 25% non residential. I spent some time exploring with neighbouring Company Secretary any wheeze to make it happen and we failed. I'm not ignorant on this subject. So if anyone lives in a house sub divided into two flats and both are leaseholders of Southwark council then you can buy the freehold and no longer have Sotuhwark Council Housing ruling you. If 2 flats in house subdivided into 3 flats you can also do it, etc.

Hi BraandNewGuy, Apologies I really had thought I'd responded. Of course any solution for some will be better than any of the other proposed recommendations. Recommendation 1 - do nothing - is clearly a rubbish option if you passionately want something done about parknig on your road. No.2 - is rubbish if you regularly park on corners and couldn't care less about the impact that has on others. No.3 - Melbourne Grove - if you don't care about parknig pressures perhaps don't have a car then this is a rubbish option to you. No.4 - if you live outside the proposed streets this is a rubbish option for you as you may well prefer the problem to stay where it is. Etc. It's all down to perspective. Is Southwark Council going to provide a station car park. Clearly not, because apart from not having the large capital to buy land for this and I doubt the building merchant wants ot sell, why would people pay to park at a station car park when it's free on local residents streets. Should Southwark Council provide car parking to businesses. Well it effectively already does - on residential streets! But weirdly shop owners park as close to their shop as possible rather than thinking perhaps that makes life harder for potential customers. Hence the reason we have such high levels of criminality of parking plates vanishing around East Dulwich. Hi grisett, My understanding of the loss of parking you talk about is the current parking controls timings. The difference between when single yellow lines operate and when they don't. You're comparing when yellow lines don't operate and stating that's the available parking now and when they do operate now or under any controlled parking which is clearly less. I'm sure it's a genuine mistake but it is misleading.