James Barber

Hi mscrathew, I've pointed out what appears unfair in that parking permits on council estates with controlled parking are free but controlled parking on the public highway ?125. They must cost similar amounts to check eligibility and issue. I'd feel more comfortable if the parking permit fees on the public highway hadn't been increased from ?99.30 to ?125 pa and more was achieved with the available funds i.e the surplus on the parking review fund rather than using permit fees to make up for people getting fewer parking tickets. Ideal would be just covering the admin costs only for first cars to ensure the accusation of profiteering was clearly wrong. Of little comfort but Southwark's permit fees are still one of the lowest for London.

Hi Fred, Each hump costs about ?1,800 and I think 4 have had to be removed and will be replaced so sad to see around ?9-10,000 but nowhere near ?80,000. I wouldn't call the consultation a farce but I would have preferred different coverage. But it appears clear more people are responding from the surrounding streets than normal traffic consultations.

Hi Penguin68, I'm afraid a big flaw in your argument. The last CPZ consultation was undertaken financial year 02/03. The budget and plans for that following financial year would have been set in Feb 02 when Labour were running Southwark Council. As for letting down constituents - lots requested controlled parking during the May 2010 elections - i didn't ask officers for this and was surprised when it came up on Labours plans but I'm delighted residents are given an opportunity whether they respond they want it or not.

If anyone is unhappy with how they've been treated trying to become a stall holder at North Cross Road makret please contact me. It sounds odd that someone trying to sell Swedish food has been refused, etc. PS. I should have pointed out that we've committed to use our devolved highway maintenance budget to resurface as much of North Cross Road as we can - now that it has lots of people walking on it and is so uneven it needs fixing before someone gets hurt.

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. Hi Loz, garnwba, The resurfacing and other works on Grove Vale have been hugely delayed while local shop keepers concerns were largely taken on board by the council - I highlighted the issues last year and was ignored but am glad they were eventually agreed by the council. The joys of being an opposition councillor. These delays have meant that resufacing works which means Melbourne Grove parking has been restricted have occurred during the consultation. The final step is to lay anti skid surfacing on top of the newly resurfaced road. BUT to do this last step requires dry weather and a dry road surface. Blaming the council for conniving to delay weather dependent work when the weather has been wet and listening, if rather late, to locals about Grove Vale isn't very fair or likely to encourage them to listen again.

Hi fred, Hope you're well. Short answer is money. Longer answer, I asked that if the controlled parking question (and background research) was being asked that residents of Tell, Matham, Ashbourne, Chesterfield, Bassano, Blackwater and the rest of Melbourne Grove also be asked. But I know that residents from a very wide area are responding to the public consultation and I would encourage you and your neighbours to also respond. Their is also a public exhibition today from 4-8pm at Grove Vale library and would recommend that if you get the chance you pop along. AS for paying to have visitors. Two options for controlled parking are proposed - 'lite' with it operating 10-12 mon-fri and 'heavy' operating 8.30-6.30 mon-fri. So IF it proceeds visitors would only need visitors permits to park in certain streets if their parking crossed into 10-12 mon-fri. Hope that helps.

The nearer the station the more they wanted controlled parking and vice versa. Very clear those furthest away didn't want it. Not really very surprising results. I suspect you'll rediscover this via your petition when you analyse the results.

The car club car on Cyrena will be moved across the road which should mean the home tha has been inconvenienced won't be for much longer.

At last night Dulwich Community Council we discussed how North Cross Road Market is working with the road closure. We agreed that the parking restrictions on the south side should be slightly extended so that all 20 stalls have somewhere to set-up/be. Bizarre that hadn't been thought of before. The committee also agreed with me that Fridays the parking restrictions should be cut right back. Fridays only attract 3 or 4 stalls but parking restrictions apply the whole way along. So the parking restrictions will be scaled back on Fridays. The traffic management orders to make this happen will take some time and not be ready until the new year but it will be an improvement.

Hi Zak, But Southwark know that from the 2002/3 CPZ consultation all over East Dulwich.

No consolation but financial years 2013/2014 East Dulwich Grove will have "measures to regulate vehicle speeds, improve pedestrian crossing points, and enhance streetscape" from memory several hundred thousand pounds of Transport for London money.

Hi easy tiger, I obtained and placed the posters in the two community noticeboards.

Hi sillywoman, I would ensure you have full name address with post code. You might want to seperately record email addresses to keep respondents up to date but without them getting into the public domain. I;'d ask something like: Are you for or against controlled parking on streets near ED station. IF controlled parking were to happen would you want it to operate mon-fro 8.39-6.30 or 10-12. If controlled parking did happen in a neighbouring street to where you live would you change your mind? Effectively columns with full name, address, postcode, yes/no, heavy/lite, yes/no and signature. Leave plenty of space so peoples handwriting is legible it also makes the petition feel weighter with more paper.

Yes I would grisett. So I will ensure that univeral controlled parking - as per effectively what your petiiton asks doesn't happen in East Dulwich to the best of my ability. This is effectively what the 200/03 public consultatino foud and what the Lib Dem councillors parking survey found. But the public consultation is about streets near East Dulwich station with two possible versions of controlled parking. And your petition doesn't ask that. I'm also still unclear whether your petition is collecting peoples full names and addresses or just signatures. So it may be hard to decide whether the petition signers are from the area or not. And I would not expect people from outside the area to decide what happen here. Much as the public consultation for North Cross Road market sunday opening appeared to be widely supported but it turned out nearly everyone in the affected local streets were against it - after residents ran an open petition/survey asknig people the public consuiltation questions. It carried a lot of weight with officers and councillors as it had out consulted the public consultation - full names and addresses and asked about the same options. So I fought for it to not happen and so far have been successful. And well done the residents from those roads that ran such a smart petition.

Hi PeckhamNative, Brilliant. Then I'm sure you'll respond you don't want any form of controlled parking and I would encourage you to talk to your neighbours and get them to respond. The feedback I've mostly had is from East Dulwich ward residents in the proposed streets (SW of Grove Vale) and they tend to have a very different set of experiences/views.

Hi first Mate, I'm really sorry if I've inadvertantly patronised anyone. Really not my intention. No one is asking every street in East Dulwich whether they want controlled parking. Of the roughly 200+ streets in East Dulwich roughly 15 are being asked formerly and 7 in the Bellenden area. Yes, ideally streets around those 22 should have been asked as well. Regretabbly not my choice or decision. But I've suggested to people in neighbouring streets that they respond to the consultation and if they feel very strongly that they call on neighbours. I'm absolutely not dismissive of people wanting to encourage others to respond or sign petitions. But I think its misguided to pretend a petition is related to a public consultation when the petiton question is so clearly not.

Tonights Dulwich Community Council we'll be deciding on whether to extend the current experimental traffic order for another 12 months. A traffic survey 1 May before the closure of North Cross Road with Lordship Lane showed 324 vehicle movements along Nutfield Road between 8am and 5pm and 2 July with the junction closed showed 475 vehicles along Nutfield Road. If you live on Nutfield Road does it feel acceptable? EDITED to attach the two traffic counts.

Hi northlondoner, I'm not a lawyer and I don't legally represent Southwark Council. So how can I answer your legal questions? But the generality..... I presume a standard CPZ consultation process is being followed and other CPZ's have not proceeded and have proceeded following this same process. I hope this helps. Hi grisett, I'm sorry this whole process is making you so very angry. Parking is a surprisingly emotional subject. If a petition asked a different question to the consultation proposals then yes it could largely or wholly be irrelevant. Equally if we can't tell how local the signers of any petition are then it would carry less weight - it could have several hundred rail commuters not wanting to lose free parking in the area near the station but living a considerable distance from the area. I've tried to give helpful advice to ensure the petitions against are as relevant and useful for the consultation decision making process as possible. I've given people for the controlled parking the same advice for door to door petitions. Funnily enoguh givng the same advice to both 'sides' makes me biased to each!

Hi BobbyP, I don't recognise the quoted calcualtions from the same conversations I've had with council officers.

Hi grsirett, If a petition isn't answering the consultation questions then it would carry little weight. Do The people being asked to sign know what has been proposed and the options? If they do then fine but the question you've posed doesn't.

Hi first mate, gsirett, A petition is not the only way to stop proposals for controlled parking. Any petition would need to be reasonable so the wording of it would be crucial. It should have the full name and address as well as any signature. I would recommend against asking for email addresses as they might conceivably end up in the public domain. Ideally you'd ask open questinos of do you want controlled parking yes/no. If yes 8.30-6.30 or 10-12 mon-fri. also whether if a neighbouring street did have controlled parking whether they'd want it. The petitoon could then potentially be intergrated into the overal consultaiton responses maximising its weight. You also need to ensure these businesses understand the concept of 'lite' controlled parking that mgiht benefit them else they could withdraw the petitions at a late date making it hard for you to recover it so to speak.

Hi gsirett, What does the wording of the petition say? I'd hate all this potential effort to be wasted.

Hi maxthecat, Let me try and find out.

Hi first mate, I tried influencing the area consulted and asked for many more East Dulwich street to be added - Tell, Matham, Chesterfield, Asbourne, Bassano, Blackwater and all of Melbourne - but as an opposition councillor failed. But I did get a 10-12 option added into the consutlation as I'm concerned all day parking controls would damage local businesses but if a 'lite' version happened businesses would benefit from shoppers beign able to park. I've also helped ensure community councils will review the final report and make recommendatinos to Cllr Barrie Hargrove before he makes his decision and am grateful that he is allowing this to happen. Hi buddug, Increasing costs to households that choose to run a car - of course I recognise that would be a consequence if the majority decide they want controlled parking. I remember very clearly hearing from many Holmdene residents about the increasing of charges from ?99.30 to ?125 and the financial pressures this brought for some. I make no apologies for suggesting to leaseholders that they consider buying the freehold of any property they live in from Southwark. Southwark Council are not great landlords of the 40,000+ tenanted and 10,000+ leasehold properties but are espeically bad where converted victorian houses are concerned. And I've had lots casework of either the council not doing repairs or doing them so badly that the leasehodlers don't have to pay and other tenants/tax payers then have to cover it. A real lose lose situation. Frankly Southwark spends so much being a bad freeholder it should problably give the freeholds away as it would be cheaper for everyone! Legally they can only sell such freeholds to leaseholders.

Hi Bobby and First mate, I've told people for and against that the more people expressing whichever view they've expressed the better. That if they're collecting signatures it would carry more weight if their name and address were clear with the signature. That I personally would expect more weight to be carried if they asked if people were for or against such controlled parking on their street, that if for controlled parking which version and whether if a neighbouring street having it would affect theirs views. It would imply they were surveying opinions rather than pressing for opinions. Hi grisett, Tonights Dulwich Community Council isn't discussing this proposed controlled parking - the meeting in January will be. By all means come along tonight but I hope that wouldn't mean you didn't come to the January meeting where it will be a formal agenda item with time to discuss peoples views or that you'll be disappoint at the lack of opportunity to discuss these proposals. Hi Colville09, I'm sorry you believe this is a stitch up - I really don't know what the residents responses will add up to. Lots of anti on the forum. An increasing number of anti's via emails and phone calls but still a majority for via those mediums to me. I've repeatedly asked people to formally repond and get their neighbours to respond. Whatever the outcome I'm not expecting it to be revisited for 10+ years as per the gap from the last such consultation. Hi BrandNewGuy, Plenty of evidence to suggest controlled parking would reduce or eliminate parking stress for residents in the proposed streets but also plenty of views it would cause more stress with fees and parking enforment and no one is sure what the displacement would mean. To convince reisdents in the proposed street they don't need it or shouldn't want it I've yet to hear of a realistic alternative. Effectively the anti's appear to be asking for altruism from residents that they continue to put up with parking pressures for the greater good of people outside the proposed streets who might starting sharing the problem. Hi Penguin68, The proposed roads were presented to ward councillors. I asked if a lot more East Dulwich ward roads could be consulted and I queried the strange shape in South Camberwell ward. But as an opposition councillor I was unsuccessful with that but I did get the option added of any controlled parking if it proceeds of operating 10-12. All day controlled parking would in my opinion have a very negative affect on Grove Vale shops. I also obtained a commitment that despite Southwark constitution the final report will be presented to both the Camberwell and Dulwich community councils for comment before the Cabinet Councillor Barrie Hargrove makes his final decision. Much to my embarassment I'd never spotted that the constitution didn't allow for this - it has never come up before since becoming a councillor in 2006.