E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[Jeremy]

As much as I am against the CPZ, some of the things being said to/about James are clearly out of order.

[mynamehere]

It is unacceptable to make professional and personal allegations of honesty and character. I think parking and street use are vicious problems. How many cars should people have? How big should cars be? How powerful should cars be? Should you have to pay to have the right to park everywhere in a city? 150 years ago this was farmland (see all the bucolic chener book and history buff posts)and now we're fighting each other like caged rats for space and it will get worse. Southeast England will be more densely populated than anywhere else and there will be water shortages. Just imagine the riots and fights, real fights there will be if we don't change the way we plan. Here, have a go at me: stop population growth everywhere, that's right, fewer children. Build flats with underground parking/ solar/ grey water recycling or don't build them. Ride a bike. Walk. Only one car per household. Only small electric cars. Personnally I think the streets should be redesigned to include farmed spaces. You get the idea. Why didn't Tessa Jowel get the Underground out here? What has the MP for this area done? Nothing.

[Huguenot]

I think gsirett should be aware that defamation includes innuendo, and that by refusing to clarify or apologise for his accusation he is aggravating his offense.

It may be that both gsirett and penguin68 have been overcome with an infatuation for Private Eye's boyish strutting, but I sincerely doubt that they have the legal support and several hundred thousand the Eye has to pay out each year to sustain this approach.

I suggets that parties involved in this irresponsible and borderline criminal accusation grow up, take a deep breath, and apologise.

[gedwina]

Absolutely - personal attacks etc do not add any credibility to this campaign and it comes across as a petty personal vendetta verging on the libellous. This debate should involve much more than a couple of respondents particularly as the CPZ covers over a thousand houses

[first mate]

As most have always said, at least James comes on here and replies and gets involved and that is to his credit.

Has there been any response from the council with regard to the various petitions?

[Loz]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> As much as I am against the CPZ, some of the

> things being said to/about James are clearly out of order.

I agree, Jeremy. Getting into a slanging match isn't helping. Keep to the facts about problems with the CPZ consultation - there are lots of them, remember. There's no need for personal attacks. We have a strong enough argument.

[trizza]

Allegations of corruption are extremely serious.

It's easy accuse Cllr Barber on an anonymous internet forum, but there's no evidence that he has done anything untoward. In fact, whilst it seems people have concerns he is biased for the CPZ (an accusation he denies), it is to his credit that he has sought to engage with people on this forum. He was, if I recall, also prepared to obtain information regarding the CPZ that the council did not release, which was very helpful to those who are against the CPZ.

Gsirett - you have made, IMO, a number of valid arguments against the CPZ and it is clear your feel strongly about it. However, "playing the man, not the ball" weakens your arguments. If you feel you have a case against Cllr Barber present it. If not, I think it would be to your credit if you withdraw any allegations people think you have made.

[gsirett]

OK, OK, sorry that some people seem to think that I've accused James Barber as being corrupt. James, I am sorry that some people think that?s what I'm accusing you of, I?m not. I asked you a set of questions, I did not accuse you of anything.

I did also ask if you?d got any relationship to the developers, you?ve said no, I completely accept that.

James - as I have said many times, I DO respect your work and have admired your input on this forum over the last few years. But, as I have also said numerous times, I do feel that you have been one-sided in your views on this subject whilst maintaining veil of impartiality. I stand by that statement.

And sorry that my abstract sarcasm got missed: "I'm not minded to comment on whether you're corrupt, but I never say never" is the same answer I was given by Southwark when asking them to extend the consultation by a week or two (i.e. they wouldn't say "no")......... I won't bother with a smiley face

So, for the record, I do not think Cllr Barber is corrupt. I am sorry if people inturpeted my posts in that way

Now I?ve calmed down, if everybody else could do the same and go back and read my initial questions from this morning. They are still valid.

There has been much discontent expressed here, and in other places, that the actual justifications being given by Southwark for this CPZ just don?t add up and now, we find, that in effect a new local library depends on a CPZ being implemented (I know not directly, but think through the

library>development>planning>no parking places>?car free?> CPZ

dependency route and it does)

And PLEASE don?t all jump on me and accuse me of being a book-burning, library hating car driver. A new library is good. Not knowing it is a factor which should be considered in relation to a CPZ is bad.

Also, we have been told numerous times how the consultation was limited due to costs, yet you KNEW that a developer had commited to 20k funding......again, I still find it strange that you failed to mention this.

I therefore still find it strange that this hasn?t been mentioned once. This isn?t a personal attack on James Barber, but it is James Barber who has been ?the voice of the council? on this forum and has presented quite clearly in favour of the scheme. He has posted in great detail about the subject but hasn?t once mentioned this development , a development that he has personally come out in favour of, a development that IS intertwined with this CPZ. James has since given an explanation, but I still do find it strange.

[edited to say sorry a couple more times]

[StraferJack]

I've been saying as much on this thread for ages - some of the people posting are slightly troubling

[gedwina]

The thread has degenerated into a couple of vocal posters (with what seems a particular agenda) and minimal posting from other parties. For this thread to be taken seriously or used as an example of "concerned residents" as opposed to the rants of a few, more input is needed and / or other posters not scared away.

[Huguenot]

Hi gsirett, well said mate.

I think Cllr Barber answered the 20k question here: effectively there IS no 20k -

"If/when a section 106 agreement is signed they [the developers] will eventually around 2014/15 give ?20,000 towards a CPZ consultation. I don't see any appetite for another such consultation within 3-4 years. Do you? So in all likeyhood that ?20,000 will sit in a council bank accounr for a number of years. The 72 Grove Vale S106 agreement had this problem and evenutally the ?50,000 was spent on the orignal Herne Hill CPZ consultation."

[fredricketts]

It is sad, that Mr James Barber is the only one from the Council, to answer our concerns.

It?s the ones hiding, that need to be told our concerns, and to work with the residents, not against them, and James is just taking the flak for them. It?s the Council that is not listening; they have their own agendas, as we all probably had experiences with them. I for one did not know about the planning permission for the flats at East Dulwich Station, as I would have been a main objector to them being built, the site could have been used for a Station Car Park, Noooooooooo, some rich developers may not get rich enough, and the Council won?t have more rates coming in, and TFL has more customers on a services that cannot manage the customers that it already has, and lastly you cannot guarantee that the tenants will not buy cars, and therefore, more residents less car parking spaces, hence more controlled parking for profit, or more money to spend on infrastructure neglected by previous Governments and Councils. As I said the Council can waste money in Melbourne Grove, by taking the humps up and putting them down again, and yet even after being given ?20,000 towards consultation of residents, only a few are consulted yet again. (Same thing happened with Somerfield?s Flats and Customer parking lot).

[monica]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi monica,

> The consultation ended 11 November.

> I would hope local Southwark Council notice boards

> would carry current timely notices. Carrying a

> notice about a consultation that ended nearly two

> weeks ago is hardly timely.

> Carrying a notice about the Dulwich Community

> Council - Tuesday 24 January for peoples diaries -

> where it will be discussed will be timely and as

> soon as I receive that notice I will be placing it

> on local noticeboards.

Hi James

Its just as well, I know how to use a calender. Hopefully Your colleagues at Dulwich Community council remember to add the CPZ discussion, to the agenda at January's meeting. I heard one of your colleagues would not hear any discussions re the CPZ at the last meeting.

>

> Hi Penguin68,

> What sad national stats and direction they're

> going in.

> Let me try and find out - just pinged an email

> trying to get this data for East Dulwich and South

> Camberwell wards.

[James Barber]

7pm 24 January Dulwich Community Council will be held at St Barnabas Church 40 Calton Avenue SE21 7DG and the chair person has agreed to largely hand over - as much as he can - the meeting to discussing the CPZ.

7pm 10 January Camberwell Community Council is proposed to be held at Jessie Duffett Hall, 92 - 94 Wyndham Road, London SE5 0UB.

North and east of Grove Vale is covered by CCC, south of Grove Vale by DCC.

[Hare]

Will the introduction of a CPZ result in people trying to pave over their front gardens and install dropped kerbs to create personal parking spaces? Apparently London already loses more than 7,000 acres of greenery a year from its private gardens. I wonder if Southwark has taken that into account.

I reckon that there are at least three roads included in the proposed CPZ where the majority of houses could have the capacity to introduce off-street parking. This would mean even fewer parking spaces for those not able to do the same.

If this were to happen, it will also affect the water table. One of the side effects is that, in a changing climate which will see less rainfall anyway, the ground dries out which in turn affects the stability of building foundations. So if experience in other areas is any indicator, get ready for an increase in subsidence and all the joys of insurance claims that accompany it.

[Penguin68]

If this were to happen, it will also affect the water table.

This need not happen if your use porous materials (gravel over membrane; brick paviours) which allow water through to the subsoil; indeed where gardens are part paved with stone or concrete slabs and these are replaced sensitively the run through (as oppose to run off) can be increased rather than diminished.

[James Barber]

Hi Hare,

The East Dulwich ward roads proposed either don't have sufficient front gardens or are largely paved over already. But it is an important point as such paving reduces the overall capacity for parking as only the home owners approved vehicles ca then park and the dropped kerb effectively bars people from parking.

[Hare]

James ? thank you for confirming my fears about the effect that dropped kerbs will have in reducing available on-road parking spaces.

As I mentioned, there are at least three roads included in the proposed CPZ in which residents could create personal parking space; they are Elsie Road, Melbourne Grove and East Dulwich Road. A cursory visual assessment from a Sunday afternoon stroll suggests that, far from being largely paved over, there is still a lot of scope for further frontage parking. Even if it is only these three roads, it has the potential to skew the numbers of available parking spaces on which the CPZ proposal is predicated and undermine its logic.

There doesn?t seem to be any mention of the issue in any of the available documentation supporting the proposal: perhaps you could explain how and when this has been taken account of?

[Jeremy]

I don't have a problem with dropped kerbs and off-street parking... you have to assume that most cars would be parked on the street most of the time anyway. Environmental impact is a red herring, as most front gardens are either concrete/paved already.

[ali2007]

Another reason not to get a CPZ IMO ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15881831

Resident parking permits increase across London - some have increased by more than 50% between 2008 & 2011...

[Zak]

Well spotted Ali. There's a programme on BBC 1. TV tonight ( "Inside Out London" ) at 7.30pm which looks at the impact of CPZs and the parking charges that they generate. Sounds like it's not for the squeamish"!

Below is the text of the article apearing in tonight's Evening Standard in advance of the programme. Let's just be grateful that we don't live in Islington with permits at ?391! - see below.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Evening Standard West End Final edition P18:

"The price of parking permits in London has soared in the past three years, an investigation revealed today.

Campaigners labelled the council charges a "poll tax" for car owners, with fees going up by as much as 150 per cent in some boroughs. It follows a huge backlash against Westminster City Council's plan to scrap free evening and Sunday afternoon parking in the West End.

The new report, by the BBC's Inside Out London programme, claims the average cost of a permit has risen by an inflation-busting 26 per cent in three years, while a visitor permit has gone up 42 per cent. In the past five years, 127 new controlled parking zones have been created. Hillingdon created the most, with 34. More than ?186million has been raised from permits since 2008, with Wandsworth council making the most, at ?25million.

A day's permit rose from ?1 to ?4 in Barnet this year, while residents' permits jumped from ?40 to ?100 per car. Lewisham residents' permits doubled to ?120 last year, while Islington permits jumped from ?200 to ?391.

AA president Edmund King said: "Parking is becoming the new poll tax. It appears car owners are being attacked from all sides - whether they're residents, visitors, shoppers or theatregoers."

Town hall officials deny that money raised from the increased cost of parking is used to subsidise other work. Lorna Reith, Haringey's deputy leader, said: "We are legally obliged to use it first of all to cover the cost of a parking scheme, and then we are allowed to spend it on other transport matters.

"We are not allowed to take it and spend it on social workers or other areas of the council's work."

Inside Out London will be shown on BBC1 tonight at 7.30.

[gsirett]

and thats why in 2009/10, Southwark raised over ?2Million from parking permits and a total parking revenue of 11 million.

The surplus from parking was ?3.4 Million ! (thats after they've paid all of the wardens, removal lorries and other costs)

Good business

[fredricketts]

As you said ?A bloody good business" More like a stealth TAX.

PCZ is a way of taking control of our roads, and putting them in the control of TFL and Councils, and in the end make MONEY, for the Council and Governments, to carry on wasting,.

[kate_riddlesdown]

id hate to see any form of pay and display parking in Dulwich full stop! it would ruin everything about the area. I find it so easy and convenient to park on all the roads in the area. Please don't let this happen.

[easytiger]

See, the ?CPZ scheme ends up being hassle. The lady (on the bbc programme Inside Out) wanted the scheme in the end due to the domino effect but is she happy now? The winner ends up being the council so that they have cash to spend on other projects. Will be interesting to see if musicians will continue to perform in the Westminster area after they extend the hours up til midnight, musicians relying on their vehicles to carry in the equipment.?

Where are the PRO CPZ people on this thread? Have you changed your minds? You can bet your bottom $ that you will regret this if and when it comes into Dulwich. Don't forget that LIbDems are supporting the scheme. Keep it in your memorys for the next two years, so you can vote them out, if you wish to.