Do you want Controlled Parking YES or NO

[James Barber]

Many people have contacted my colleagues and I asking for controlled parking so we want to take a temperature check of what all local residents views on this are - for and against.

We have created an online survey to capture the views of those for and against a controlled parking on their street - https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/KGT2WZR

Controlled parking has recently been installed in North Dulwich. And it will be also be installed on the northern side of the East Dulwich railway line this summer.

Parking spaces are coming under increasing pressure with the installation of significant extra double yellow lines, along with local developments such as The Charter School East Dulwich and new health centre, which even while being built are adding to the problems with contractors parking in the limited spaces.

Controlled Parking permits costs ?125 per vehicle and any zone is likely to operate for one or two hours per day - this could vary by street. Local businesses are likely to oppose controlled parking as a minority of around 22% of shoppers visit by car and any loss in trade in the current economic climate would be really painful for them during the hour or two of controlled parking operating.

Please let us know what you think by completing this short survey - https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/KGT2WZR

NB. What we have found historically many want state they want controlled parking. The council then runs a public consultation at great cost. At that point people have come out against a CPZ and it has not proceeded. The most recent experience was at the northern end of Crystal Palace Road.

So this is a genuine attempt to take temperature check on views for and against - [www.surveymonkey.co.uk]

Your name and address and views on controlled parking are mandatory questions the remaining questions are optional. We will check every response is from a local resident against the electoral roll.

[ianr]

Never mind optionality. Cut out the question about voting intentions. I don't see its relevance to the content of people's views on CPZs. It's also very likely to lead people to suspect that, DPA notwithstanding, the answer is going to be used for canvassing purposes.

I'd also like to see a really large or representative selection, through a well-designed survey or otherwise, of the before-and-after views of people who've experienced the introduction of a CPZ. That would be valuable.

[Penguin68]

Please note that this is not either a Market or a Social Research exercise. Both of these absolutely require that personal identifiers are NEVER associated with individual responses and the identity of those taking part (with some very special exceptions) is NEVER divulged to the principal commissioning the research.

This is a list building exercise designed to allow Lib Dem messages to be sent to those supporting CPZs (I would guess) suggesting that the Lib Dems support such a move, whilst making sure that antis don't get that message.

By all means participate in this exercise, but do not think it has anything to do with legitimate market or social research practices. It breaches the MRS code big time.

Neither will it provide figures which are in any way representative of the ED population. The ED forum is a self selecting population the representativeness of which is unknown. Neither is it known (I would guess) how many forumites are now resident in the set of wards which cover ED. So it would be impossible to make any statistical interpretation of results.

[Hare]

This survey asks questions of no relevance to the topic and will not process the response unless they are provided: they are NOT optional. It appears to me to be a cynical ploy to garner data for political use. Here are the examples:

?8. If there was an election tomorrow, which way would you vote (please tick more than one if you're unsure)

Conservative

Labour

Liberal Democrat

Green Party

UKIP?

How is my voting preference relevant to CPZ introduction? I had to ignore this several times before I could get past it.

?7. In what year were you born? (enter 4-digit birth year; for example, 1976?

How has this to do with CPZ introduction? I?m voting/driving age, which can be ascertained by a cross-reference with my name and address on the voting register (the form asks for this information in order to check that the responses are from affected individuals, which is reasonable)

And finally,

?If you return this survey the Liberal Democrats and their elected representative may use the information you've given to contact you. Some contacts may be automated.?

I feel that this fundamentally impairs the validity of this survey.

[ollieloudon]

Lib dems over my dead body.

[nxjen]

For those who haven?t seen it, James posted a link to his survey on the other CPZ thread which prompted further discussion regarding motivation and design of survey http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1916456,page=5

[Penguin68]

Lib dems over my dead body.

Lucky we're not in Russia, or I'm sure it could be arranged...

[first mate]

This 'survey' is deeply cynical and deeply disappointing , but sadly, not surprising.

[Blah Blah]

LOL Penguin.

Agree with everyone else. This is not a survey genuinely only interested in a balanced perspective of views, it is an exercise to find a canvassing hit list for (I presume) the coming local elections.

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

No.

[Louisa]

Bit disappointed in James with this one. I do like him as a person, but I don?t feel comfortable with this survey. It stinks of political opportunism. Sorry James.

Louisa.

[noelewilson]

NO

[Reg Smeeton]

I don't have strong views either way about CPZ, happy to fill in the survey, but disappointed that it contains political questions - these are irrelevant, and undermine the so-called 'genuine motives' that James referred to.

[flocker spotter]

lol survey- the lid dems really have no shame

[Sue]

No

[SpringTime]

No to CPZ and no to survey. Thanks! :-)

[DulwichFox]

No. ?125.00 now. One in place price can only rise and we get no say.

[rememberwhen]

No No No

[Louisa]

Based on the cost and potential rises I have to say NO too.

Louisa.

[singalto]

I do not want a CPZ, thank you very much.

[tiddles]

No no no no no

[kford]

No, to paying ?125+ for no benefit whatsoever.

[Zak]

?125 each year for a permit..........and doubtless rising!

?49 for 10 vouchers for visitors @ c?5 a throw ...........do pop over to see us!

More permits issued than available parking spaces ...........don't imagine that you're guaranteed a space!

It feels very much like a form of additional local taxation.

So....... NO to a CPZ!!

[vic.ham]

No to a CPZ! and would the proposed ?125 be in addition to the vehicle excise duty, which all car users must pay in order to use and park on public roads?

[Charles Notice]

Even if you say no to a CPZ if other streets say yes Southwark will say we will have to include your street as it will impose greater parking stress on others not in a CPZ.

If 99 people say no and 100 people say yes, majority wins you will lose.

You cannot win.