E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[peckhamboy]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Those just outside the CPZ - the majority claim

> ?125 is an outrageous fee (although they won't pay

> it), and claim there is no congestion problem but

> simultaneously say that the congrestion will get

> passed to them (somewhat contradictory then).

Actually, the main argument here is that there is some congestion across all streets. I live just outside the zone and we have a small amount of non-resident parking, but not enough to cause a problem. My concern about the effect of the CPZ is that it will create a problem where there is none at present, partly by concentrating all of the non-resident parking onto a very small number of streets just outside the zone (eg the Oglander 'wedge') and partly by pushing resident and visitor parking from the outer limits of the CPZ onto surrounding streets to avoid permit fees. In effect, this is congestion creation not congestion shifting.

I also think the consultation document is misleading and shockingly absent of objectivity, that the consultation ought to take into account the immediate neighbours of the zone and that the council has been fairly cynical in timing its exhibitions right at the end of the consultation period, helping to limit the flow of information.

Oh, and for good measure, the approval threshold based on a minimum consent of a mere 10% of directly affected (ie those inside the zone) residents seems somewhat on the low side for a project as divisive as this.

[DaveR]

The level of manufactured self-righteous outrage on this thread is off the scale. Both the pro and anti CPZ camps are essentially selfishly motivated but at least the pro lot are speaking from actual experience. I don't have a strong opinion either way and I suspect, across all the residents of ED, I'm in the majority.

[Bobby P]

I'll defend to the death kr988's and everyone else's right to express pro-CPZ views here (though my personal opinion is that anyone who actively votes to impose a CPZ on themselves is barking mad - a view based primarily on my experience of CPZ-living and the reduction in quality of life thereof). But each to their own, I assume those voting FOR have had a different (positive) experience with being in a CPZ in the past, which would explain their disagreement with people like me, who have encountered the opposite.

But clearly everyone has a right to express views strongly here. Those on the immediately adjacent roads to the proposed CPZ should clearly have been consulted by the Council. The fact that they weren't is cause for review of the whole process, in my opinion.

[gsirett]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As an outsider looking in, there seems to be three

> groups to look at:

>

> Those living inside the CPZ - a reasonable (but

> not substantial) majority feel that ?125 is a

> reasonable fee to pay to ease parking congestion.

>

> Those just outside the CPZ - the majority claim

> ?125 is an outrageous fee (although they won't pay

> it), and claim there is no congestion problem but

> simultaneously say that the congrestion will get

> passed to them (somewhat contradictory then).

>

> Those who live more than a mile from the CPZ, but

> use the CPZ area for commuter and shopper parking

> - claim ?125 is an outrageous fee, claim there is

> no congestion problem, and use children, the

> handicapped, geriatrics or the commercial success

> of LL as justification for their convenience, and

> attack the council for carpetbagging and the

> government for both the Iraq war and the price of

> petrol.

>

> Ho hum.

Huguenot,

Welcome to the thread.

Your analysis is welcome, but I don't think it relfects the overwhelming views being expressed here.

If you look back through the 18 odd pages of discussion , the ?125 is not heavily disucssed. This is not about money. This is about a badly flawed design. A design that will impact far more people than southwark are letting on.

It is also about not being consulted

I would hazard a guess that the majority of people on this forum, like me, could compfortably afford this (it's a guess, please don't all cry "well, I can't GSirett", just a guess based on the local demographics ). It's two tanks of petrol to put in in perspective

I am defiantly in the "Just Outside the zone" camp and, like most people on this forum, have never said there is not a problem in the proposed CPZ area. There is a problem on, say, Elsie Road, abosolutly. But there is also a problem on ED Grove, Glengarry Road, Ashbourne Grove, Trossach Road, Tarbert Road, Hillsborough Road, Lordship Lane, Matham GRove, Tell Grove [ I won't go on, I think you get the idea] - these roads are also very densly parked. But these roads are about to get a WHOLE lot worse and these roads ARE NOT BEING CONSULTED. Many of these Roads are 5 mins walk to the station, they're about to get the commuters and anybody in the CPZ who dosn't fancy buying a ticket.

So, there's a debate to be had about whether we leave as is, or whether to put in a well designed CPZ that balances the needs of the local community. But, I think, the currently proposed scheme is too flawed.

[fredricketts]

gsirett

Could not have put it better.

[milk76]

Huguenot - Spot on

[buddug]

Gsirett - I love what you're doing here re petitions etc and agree with all your comments about why a CPZ would be terrible,and I loved the way,along with Zak,you managed, finally, to pin James Barber down on what would be an acceptable petition to the snakes at Southward Council, but when you say:

"I would hazard a guess that the majority of people on this forum, like me, could compfortably afford this (it's a guess, please don't all cry "well, I can't GSirett", just a guess based on the local demographics )."

Hello? (Sorry to be the person in your brackets!)

But I have to say that for me, it's just one more thing government, central and local, is using to squeeze us dry. And I guarantee you, they haven't even started yet. We're most of us trying to make ends meet at the moment, and as I said as an example, what's the point in people planning to turn down the heating a notch or two to save a ?100 or so on gas if they're then hit with this extra ?125. The Sainsbury shop gets higher all the time, so does petrol etc, and I'm telling you, when Italy goes down the pan, which it will, things will really get tough around here.

Gripe over. Otherwise, I think you're great!

[gsirett]

All

So far, our (me & Sillywoman) petition has got about 400 signatures from local residents (I think 1 person ticked the "in favour" box) I know there are many other petitions floating around. I'm told that there is also a petition of local ED businesses where 99% of them (over 200) have objected to the proposed flawed CPZ

These petitions are essential: I do not yet want to go into details as I've asked some confirmation questions, but I fear that, based on an email I've had from Southwark today, responses to their consultation will only be counted if you are IN the CPZ zone (so if you live next door, it's a bit like voting on x-factor after the lines have closed)

As I say, I have asked some questions so will confirm this on here once I've had that clarificaction

Paul Gellard has stated that he will acept petitions as long as they are sent to him either by email ([email protected]) or by sending to their "Tooley St office" (not sure what number)

He's also said he needs them by Monday (not Friday as we'd all thought)as that?s when he starts his analysis

So, to all of those doing their own petition, I'm repeating Zak's instructions below:

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.

[citizenED]

Could I ask whether any of the people who are pro-CPZ ever park outside another person's home?

[easytiger]

sirett, i have petitioned each shop around Grove vale and included areas and each of them have signed against the GV CPZ proposal, i am also liasing with our legal team for a court injunction if this will be needed for reasons i have posted earlier.

SSBA (South Southwark Business Association) LL section. B)

[bmu]

I assume that if one has signed the petition in a local shop, this will be included in the overall petition. Is that right?

[gsirett]

bmu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I assume that if one has signed the petition in a

> local shop, this will be included in the overall

> petition. Is that right?

Absolutely

It's all a bit un-coordinated, but they should all get there.

But I suppose seeing most people in east dulwich seem to have found out about this in the last week or so, it's not bad

[sairahpillai]

Yes regularly on the other side(not in the cpz zone )of Melbourne Grove or Elsie Road! But never on a weekend or after 6 pm!

[peterstorm1985]

citizenED Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Could I ask whether any of the people who are

> pro-CPZ ever park outside another person's home?

Yes, I rather wondered why there was such a complaint that those in the CPZ could not find a space when they came 'back' to their road during the day. This suggests that they went somewhere and not always (I guess) to a large municipal or private car park. I suspect there are a few roads that have schools in them where the residents have a significant problem at certain times of the day (Oh no, maybe that's coaches not cars).

As I have previously stated, I live outside the CPZ, in one of those roads that will be affected by dispersal; but I have off-street parking so will not be directly affected. As such, I think I can take a reasonably objective view.

From where I stand this scheme will only ever alleviate the parking problem if a fee is charged, as some people will choose not to pay and park elsewhere. (The stats for 'commuter' parking simply do not provide the requisite freeing up of spaces when a reduction in legal spaces is accounted for). But it only works for as long as the CPZ does not expand. Due to the proximity of Lordship Lane, the potential for dispersal simply isn't there so an extension is inevitable. When that happens it will be just too far to walk for those who have chosen not to buy permits, and so they will dig deep into their pockets for the permits. Their cars will go back and then all of those in the CPZ will be paying for permits but getting nothing more than they get now.

The sad thing, and the reason that I really object, is that some of those people are not as well off as the majority of those who can afford the time and technology to discuss the matter here.

[Bobby P]

Re. the online petition on Southwark's site, I heard back from Southwark Council, who have emailed those who tried to set one up to ask if they would mind combining their petitions into one against the CPZ. I replied yes, and apparently if the others do, this will then go live as one petition.

Obviously it's beyond the deadline for Southwark's "consultation", but as many who will be affected only heard of this in some cases in the last week, I see no reason why we shouldn't continue to voice our (in this case anti) feelings. The fact that the original consultation was not circulated to so many affected people - and the number who have signed the physical petition in such a short space of time - surely means that further challenges and petitions should continue to be heard.

Otherwise, what is the point of the meeting in January we are all told to attend to discuss the CPZ? Surely that can't just be for us to rubber stamp a fait accompli...

[ShinyShiny]

Yikes, I'm an occasional forum reader and have just tried to digest 18 pages worth of something worth digesting!

I live right on the cpz boundary within a 4 minute walk from ED station - this proposal quite obviously directly affects the parking situation on my road.

At such late notice is there anything I can do? Email someone directly at the council? Call them? My neighbours need to know, but I don't think they'd appreciate me starting a door to door petition at 22.45!

[gsirett]

Sign a petition, start a petition,Make sure you complete southwarks consultation form ( google east dulwich CPZ)

Write to your councillor, write to your MP

Do NOT accept that your elected representatives have got your best interests at heart and, finally, agree never to laugh at It's All About Money conspiracy theorists again

Edited to say: actually, one more thing.....make it your mission to make sure cllr James barber and cllr Barrie Hargrove never get elected again, never forget the time they tried to gerrymander and mislead the people that elected them, never forget the time they ignored local businessses, never forget the time they treated their constituents with such contempt that they wouldn't answer their questions. I don't care if you vote labour, conservative or raving loony....just don't let these people stamp on your lives with such impunity

[Chener Books]

Odd.

I'm still talking with residents of the proposed CPZ who know nothing about it.

Did Southwark Council have an audit in place to check whether the consultation packages were delivered?

John K

[Penguin68]

If I was a cynic I might suggest that they just sent the consultation papers to the (quoted by James Barber) 50 or so people who have complained in the last few years.

[Huguenot]

Chener Books, is it odd? You can provide people with information through their door, nailed on lampposts and knock on doors as much as possible, but there will always be people who ignore this, and there will always be people who pretend not to have been informed just to cause trouble.

It seems you don't live in the affected area, so can I take it that your campaign is either politically motivated, or simply to guarantee more parking space for your customers?

Penguin68, is your campaign politically motivated too, or do you live in the zone?

Just asking, like.

[Moos]

I live in the proposed zone, and did not receive the pack. I did see small notices pinned to lampposts nearby, though.

I'm not sure whether relying on people reading lampposts counts as notification, however the council did apparently post a pack to everyone in the proposed zone, mine may have gone astray.

[gsirett]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Chener Books, is it odd?....

> It seems you don't live in the affected area, so

> can I take it that your campaign is either

> politically motivated, or simply to guarantee more

> parking space for your customers?

>

> Penguin68, is your campaign politically motivated

> too, or do you live in the zone?

>

> Just asking, like.

I should think neither of these people live in the zone, but both of their lives are about to get a whole lot worse

I would also suggest, as these people are going to be directly ( and, in all probability, negatively ) affected, they have a right to be consulted on this

YOUR attitude of " if you're not in the zone, you don't count" is the same as southwark councils

In defence of chener books, I know 99% of businesses in east dulwich have asked for this not to go ahead. Don't acuse people of being politically motivated, they are scared this will damage their businesses and the area. I'm sure you'll love it when chener books closes and mcdonalds opens up: you'll be as to drive down there, pick up your burger and park when you get home ( if you believe southwark....it's not what I found living in a CP Z)

[Peckhampam]

gsirett-after reading your rant before last I would certainly accuse you of being blatently politically motivated.

[peckhamboy]

Huguenot, in the interests of fairness, perhaps you could disclose which part of the zone or wider east dulwich area you live in, and how the proposed cpz will affect you?

[gsirett]

peckhamboy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Huguenot, in the interests of fairness, perhaps

> you could disclose which part of the zone or wider

> east dulwich area you live in, and how the

> proposed cpz will affect you?

Not political, just furious at being treated with such contempt by 2 councillors who HAVE a clear political agenda, whilst telling us this is all driven by demand and it will make everybody's lives better.

BTW I voted liv dem last time ( and time before that. National and local