bonaome

@garnwba: I think if Barry Hargrove knew that the consultation and roadworks would coincide, he should have delayed the consultation (or brought it forward, he's had 9 months from when the data was collected). I think that if Barry Hargrove didn't know they would coincide, and no one in his team knew, then I'd say a) he's not up to the job and b) the current consultation process should be abandoned as there are a-priori reasons to believe that the data collected would be affected by the unusual circumstances in which it's being collected.

THE MOTIVE The council has a stated objective of reducing traffic in the borough by 3% and sees CPZs as a means of hitting that target. The proposed scheme would be funded by TfL, hence the funny shape of it, and whilst the council can't make a 'profit' from the scheme (whatever that means) it seems it can use the proceeds to fund other civic projects - i.e. the very stuff of their raison d'etre. THE CRIME They have pulled together a "consultation" document which doesn't mention a single disadvantage of introducing the scheme. They've restricted the consultation to only those living within the proposed CPZ and ignored the adjacent streets, which they admit will 'be hammered'. The consultation is taking place 9 months after the survey data was collected, and it just happens to coincide with the Grove Vale road works which have suspended all parking on Melbourne Grove, significantly increasing the parking pressure on the surrounding streets at the time of the consultation. The consultation survey is well structured to deliver an outcome in favour of the CPZ (I spent over 10 years in market research agencies, designing questionnaires*) and I strongly suspect that the data analysis might be looked at in just the same way. THE VICTIM Meanwhile the council doesn't really seem to have much of a grip on the numbers. In summary: currently there are 691 spaces, an estimated 20% used by commuters means 553 residents can park. However the scheme will leave only 507 spaces. I'm not sure I need to bother with the summing up.

No. There was a reference to the Herne Hill CPZ, which _has_ expanded on the S'wark side (albeit by only 1 street so far, but ...) and is now under consultation to expand significantly on the Lambeth side.

The 2 aussies in the office tell me that in Australia the kerbs have a line on them marking out a parking space and there's a notice up asking people to park considerately. Apparently it works wonders.

I've never heard of one being removed once instated. I've never known one not expand, once instated.

I asked Barrie Hargrove if he thinks the consultation document is biased. This is what he said. "...I do acknowledge that the consultation document for the Grove Vale area sets out very clearly what some people may well regard as being the benefits of a CPZ, that does not mean that it is "biased". If a proposal had say 11 advantages and only 3 disadvantages, I don't think it would be in anyone's interests in the sense of "unbiasedness" [sic] to put forward only 3 advantages..." It seems Barrie doesn't think the disadvantages of a CPZ should be mentioned in a consultation document. I asked him to clarify whether or not he knew that the current consultation would coincide with the current Grove Vale road works, which involve the complete suspension of all parking spaces on Melbourne Grove between Grove Vale and East Dulwich Grove, thereby forcing local residents to park in the adjacent streets - i.e. the streets being consulted on a CPZ? This is what he said ... "Clearly it is important to get on satisfactorily complete the TfL financed Grove Vale improvement works as soon as possible. It is also important that as a local council were responded to local residents concerns about parking problems in their area. The two initiatives are only linked in so far as their has been a need to get them both underway." Barrie thought it was really important to get the consultation underway asap. 9 months after the survey data was collected. He hasn't answered the question as to whether or not he knew that the consultation was happening at the same time as the Grove Vale road works. I wasn't at his surgery last night in Peckham Library (or the Friday before) but says that he is going to be at the parking exhibition Wednesday 9 November 2011, @ 4:30pm but has to leave sharply at 5:30pm.

Councillor Barber, are you saying that Barry Hargrove, Cabinet Member for Transport, didn't know that the Grove Vale roadworks would coincide with the Grove Vale CPZ consultation? And that when deciding the timing of the consultation he didn't check to see if there would be anything out of the ordinary going on around the Grove Vale area that might make it a poor time to do the consultation - which, by the way, is being conducted 9 months after the parking survey data was collected? And that the left and right hands to which you refer, belong to the same chap? I'll ask Barry and see what he says. If what you suggest is true, I'd say Barry's not up to the job. Wouldn't you?

Are you sure you know which road you live in though garnwba? It's not just Wino who thinks there's no problem on Melbourne Grove, the council's survey appears to agree with him. [pre] [/pre]

The parking team have the proposals on display on: - - Saturday 5 November 2011, 10am-2pm - Wednesday 9 November 2011, 4pm-8pm At Grove Vale Library in both cases. I'm hoping to go to the Wednesday session. @james barber: keeping the costs down and all that, how would one go about organising a notice in the community notice boards - the one on NXR and the one on Grove Vale? [pre] [/pre]

Please Contact your councillor and let them know your thoughts about the proposed scheme and the consultation process: As well as James Barber for ED there is Jonathan Mitchell, 020 7525 2839 / 07903 967911 [email protected] and Councillor Rosie Shimell, 020 7525 3488, [email protected] For the South Camberwell side James Barber tells me the people to contact would be ... [email protected] and [email protected] and [email protected] In all cases cc: [email protected] He is the Cabinet Member for Transport, Environment and Recycling. His phone number is: 020 7525 7311 He has confirmed that he'll be at the surgery at Peckham Library this Friday 6-7pm - you don't need an appointment.

I don't believe people are using the station to commute to London Bridge. Look at the map. If you lived near or were driving past North Dulwich you'd use it for LBG West Dulwich trains go to VIC so for LBG you'd look elsewhere, but I'd have thought North Dulwich Sydenham Hill trains go to VIC but wouldn't you just go to Sydenham where the trains go to LBG Honor Oak Park - LBG Forest Hill - LBG Nunhead - to VIC and I think to LBG on rare occasion and with following wind, but would you really drive from unhead to ED to park near the station and get the train from there? Wouldn't you just change at Peckham Rye? So I'm not sure where people would be driving from to get to ED to park. I'm beginning to suspect that the "commuters" actually live in ED, or work in it. Hard to imagine with all the buses that people from the south circular end are driving to the station. So maybe a lot of it is people coming to the area to work in the shops and offices, and schools. Looking at the parking survey data provided in the pdf by Mr Barber, this might fit, but it's quite hard to interpret the data without knowing a little bit more about the enumeration method. Edited for typos.

Councillor Barrie Hargrove Cabinet Member for Transport, Environment and Recycling won;t be at the surgery at Peckham Library tonight, but he will be there next Friday, 4th October. You don't need an appointment. I'm planning to go with a few questions.

Widdy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > it seems clear from the responses on here that the CPZ > won't be implemented. But we'll see..... I lived in Battersea when the Clapham Junction CPZ was extended to cover the estate east of Latchmere Road. The council put a survey through the door. I can't remember the exact numbers but it was c. 52/48 in favour, but on a response rate of only about 20% If there's the flimsiest chance to put it in, that CPZ will be going in.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi karter, > Yes, it is clear on the East Dulwich Forum people > are generally against controlled parking near East > Dulwich station. But those that have stated they > live in the proposed streets for the controlled > parking seem to be in favour. Do you mean on the forum? Looking back over the posts in the whole thread I can find 3 that appear to be in favour from people who seem to be suggesting or saying they live in the proposed CPZ. - garnwba October 19, 02:23PM - Andrew1011 October 22, 05:04PM - and ingridcjones October 22, 11:25PM vs. 8 from people who say or suggest they live in the proposed CPZ and who appear to be against it. - Peckhampam October 19, 01:19PM, - Bobby P October 20, 11:43PM, - Mscrawthew October 22, 02:22PM, - bugsbgone October 23, 05:13AM, - Widdy October 23, 08:45AM, - peckhamasbestos October 23,02:20PM, - Moos October 23, 08:42PM, - and first mate Today, 07:32AM I only hope that's reflective of the proportions not on the forum. Quite a few making reference to having lived in a CPZ before and having seen first hand, as I have, that whist CPZ have brought extra expense (cost of permits) and inconvenience (fewer vistors, extra expense for workmen, desirable commuters deterred too - the ones who keep the local shops alive, work at the local school ... ) they've not actually eased parking pressure.

You might want to make your views known, or pose questions to ... Councillor Barrie Hargrove Cabinet Member for Transport, Environment and Recycling His phone number is: 020 7525 7311 His email is: [email protected] He has a surgery the 1st and the 4th Friday of every month 6-7pm, at Peckham library. So he should be there this Friday (28th Oct) and next Friday (4th Nov). Why not pop over and see him to ask him about the proposals in the consultation. You can also email the other ward councillors, why let poor old James take all the strain ... Councillor Jonathan Mitchell, 020 7525 2839 / 07903 967911 [email protected] Councillor Rosie Shimell, 020 7525 3488, [email protected] The Consultation document says the consultation closes on 11th November, but in fact there are several stages between there and rolling out the scheme.

There will be two parking exhibitions where we will have the opportunity to discuss the proposed scheme with the parking projects team. - Saturday 5 November 2011, 10am-2pm - Wednesday 9 November 2011, 4pm-8pm Both sessions are at Grove Vale Library. As much as I'd love to, I cannot make the Saturday session, but I'll do everything I can to go to the session on 9th.

Does anyone know, for certain, if the council has any legal obligation to present an unbiased argument in the consultation document?

I have emailed [email protected] with the following questions, I have cc'd [email protected], [email protected] I urge you to send questions and comments on to the official email address and not confine any objections here. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hello, I wonder if you could help me with some queries I have over the proposed Grove Vale Controlled Parking Zone. 1) In the consultation document, you state "We have studied the pattern of parking in the area and have found that on average 20% of vehicles parked in the area during the daytime week are commuters or non-residents." Could you tell me the details of how you got to this figure? 2) Is there no obligation on the council to produce a consultation document which is unbiased and factual? The document presents a great many things as benefits of a residents' parking scheme which are in fact unconnected. In particular the consultation document mentions a number of road safety benefits under the banner of creating the CPZ. In themselves the safely benefits are no doubt valuable, but tying the safety improvements together with the introduction of a residents' parking scheme seems misleading. For instance: - a) The consultation document says that the CPZ will offer "A safer road environment for all motorists, cyclists and pedestrians due to less dangerous parking." If it's safety that's an issue please could you tell me why this is not being address with double yellow lines? I think it's very misleading to position safety improvements as a benefit of the proposed resident's parking scheme by wrapping up the two different things together as you have. b) The consultation document says that the CPZ will offer "Reduced traffic congestion with less obstructive parking as bays will show where it is safe to park and yellow lines where it is not ..." - Wouldn't yellow/red single/double lines achieve the safety improvement better and more cheaply? c) The document says "Yellow lines at junctions will ensure better visibility for all road users, including pedestrians, by keeping them clear of parked cars." - Again, yellow lines wrapped up with a residents' parking scheme. If visibility is an issue, then the yellow lines should be painted independent of a residents' parking scheme. Why have you tied these two things together? d) The document says the CPZ will lead to "A safer road environment for all motorists, cyclists and pedestrians due to less dangerous parking." - As above, surely a residents' parking scheme is not the way to control dangerous parking. There are some other practical issues I would like to query. 3) The document says the CPZ will lead to "Greater access for emergency vehicles, as we will be able to maintain a safe width on narrow or busy roads." Does this mean that you are planning to have the bays on some streets partly on the pavement? Or are you planning to narrow the pavement and widen the road on some streets? 4) The document says the CPZ will lead to "Improved public realm due to the reduction of parked cars." Could you tell me the percentage reduction in parked cars that you expect? 5) The consultation document says, "By reducing parking pressure, CPZs make other street improvements such as trees and on-street cycle parking more acceptable" Is it not the case that the environment will become more cluttered both visually, with sineage for information about the CPZ's operation, and physically with pay and display machines? I look forward to your replies on these matters.

With ali2007. I've been through this three times now. Pimlico, Battersea, Brixton. Same thing each time. Starts off near the station, spreads and spreads. It costs residents money for a permit, it costs businesses heavilly as the permits are very expensive and it deters local shoppers and makes it a pain and an expense to have visitors. Moreover the proposals seem to be based on an assumption that a significant proportion of the parked traffic is commuter traffic, yet this is not well founded. Add to that the fact that the consultation document is in large part nonsense and irrelevance and you have all the ingredients of a really crap idea.

Please don't just confine your views to the forum, I urge you to make you views known at [email protected] and suggest you cc [email protected] and [email protected] with reference to "Grove Vale - proposed Controlled Parking Zone, GV" There are a number of things about the proposals which seem to me to be ill thought through. The consultation document reports that "The council have received feedback from residents indicating that parking demand has increased in uncontrolled streets around East Dulwich rail station." I'd say it's increased in all streets in East Dulwich over the last few years as the demographic profile of the area has changed. There's an underlying assumption that the problems reported are due to commuters parking near ED station. The consultation document says, "We have studied the pattern of parking in the area and have found that on average 20% of vehicles parked in the area during the daytime week are commuters or non-residents." The problems with this are: - - That's 2 in 10 cars, even if the statistic is true - deterring them wouldn't free up very much space - Of the 2 cars in 10, even if the statistic is true, we assume 1 of them is not a commuter but falls into the non-resident category - so, your friends who are visiting, the plumber who's fixing your boiler, the people who live at the other end of Lordship Lane but today have driven to park near the station to collect their elderly aunt who can't walk very far etc etc. - The statistic appears to be plucked from the imaginations of a few freelancers working for the council who were supposed to be doing something else (see here) Then there's some other odd bits of thinking and general irrelevance in the consultation document. "Our surveys have identified that parking occupancy is very high in all streets ..." - welcome to London. "... with many exceeding capacity" - does this mean that there are more cars parked on the streets than can be physically parked on the streets? Are they double parked? Are some cars parked on the pavement? Why aren't existing regulations being used to prevent this? A CPZ will, the consultation document says, offer ... + "Greater ease in finding parking spaces close to home for residents and their visitors" - for residents yes, at the cost of having to buy a permit, but for their visitors, no. It means that the visitors can only come and stay outside the CPZ hours or they have to fiddle about with scratch card permits or similar (at cost to the resident). I know it might only be a few quid for pay and display or a scratch card, but my personal experience as well as common sense tells me that that is making it a hassle to have people coming to visit you/workmen etc. It makes it harder, not easier. + "Easier parking near shops, schools and other amenities within the area with nearby pay and display bays ..." - ahhh, pay and display, yes, now I get how that makes it easier for me. + "Reduced traffic congestion with less obstructive parking as bays will show where it is safe to park and yellow lines where it is not ..." - Shouldn't yellow/red single/double lines already do this? This shouldn't be wrapped up together as a proposition with a CPZ. + "A safer road environment for all motorists, cyclists and pedestrians due to less dangerous parking." - As above, if it's safety that's an issue this should be addressed with double yellow lines, not a CPZ and I think it's misleading to position safety improvements as a benefit of the proposed CPZ. + "By reducing parking pressure, CPZs make other street improvements such as trees and on-street cycle parking more acceptable" - You couldn't make it up. If anyone can explain to me how having a CPZ makes having trees on the street more acceptable I would be eternally grateful. Is it because the extra trees can have all the parking notices and pay and display machines nailed to them? +"Yellow lines at junctions will ensure better visibility for all road users, including pedestrians, by keeping them clear of parked cars." - Again, yellow lines wrapped up with a residents' parking scheme. If visibility is an issue, then the yellow lines should go down independent of a residents' parking scheme. +"A safer road environment for all motorists, cyclists and pedestrians due to less dangerous parking." - As above, residents' parking scheme not the way to control dangerous parking. + "Greater access for emergency vehicles, as we will be able to maintain a safe width on narrow or busy roads." - So the bays will only be for narrower vehicles than those parking there now?? + "Improved public realm due to the reduction of parked cars." - Is the scheme about ensuring residents can park, or about reducing the overall number of vehicles? What's the reduction proposed to be? Is it more than 10%? In which case there's less parking for residents assuming the statistic about parking use above is true. In addition to the above, there's all the issues mentioned by other posters on this thread, including that the consultation appears to be very narrow, and if you were a cynic you might even think the documents and selection of those included seem designed to gain quick approval from those to whom the scheme will perhaps have braoad appeal without any real consideration of the wider impact on the East Dulwich community. In short, it's a shocker!

http://www.charter.southwark.sch.uk/folders/admissions/do_we_have_a_catchment_.cfm

On the map, what do the fractions mean?

@Tarot: That should be, don't, and, can't, both with an apostrophe. They are respectively contractions of do not (don't) and cannot (can't).

If it continues you might benefit from getting a solicitor involved. There was an article from the Evening Standard's Homes & Property resident solicitor just last week which covered a lot of what you can do regarding noise and nuisance. You can see it here (p38), it's free but you have to register with an email address. Hope it gets better.

The Crawthew Grove crossing - I just don't see the benefit, when there's the zebra crossings on the roundabout a few yards down. But I can see the danger as outlined by Kford. All in all the crossing there strikes me as a bad idea. @JamesBarber: I think you've misinterpreted my earlier comment. I'm with Loz. I don't think I've ever managed to get up to dizzying speeds like 20mph on LL. That is of course because I'm driving on LL on a Saturday morning back from Sainsbury's and the world and it's dog is out and about. No doubt at 4am, I could get up a good lick in the olde jalope. Of course, even if I were to be about and about at 4am on Monday and find the lane free of obstacles, I'd still be inclined to keep to a reasonable speed that would, for example, allow me to break and not collide with another vehicle exiting an abutting road hidden by parked vans etc. Were I the kind of chap who wanted to do 40MPH down LL, I doubt a 20MPH limit would stop me. Is that why studies show that introducing 20MPH zones reduces average speed* by 1.3MPH? A study in Portsmouth I think showed that city wide introduction of 20MPH zones reduced casualties by 8% per year, but increased fatalities (by 1 - not %, actual number, i.e. had no real effect). Have a butcher's. *Average speed. Mean, mode, median? By day, by part of the day? Who knows? Who cares?