E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[Loz]

easytiger Wrote:

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

> 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.

... and Labour are running Southwark council and are behind this scheme. Tories at Westminster are the biggest CPZ-mongers going. Party politics doesn't really come into this. They all realise it is an easy way of raking in the cash.

[gsirett]

This website provides a useful insight into "life under a CPZ"

http://www.barnetcpz.blogspot.com/

For all of those people concerned that they can't park within 100m of their house, have a look at what you're going to have to deal with, you've got it all to come.

We have now received a large number of complaints from residents

about the injustices caused by the current CPZs

To many of you, these injustices matter more than the proposed

large increases in the charges.

These are some of the complaints received:

Parking designs which make it more difficult to park closer to homes.

No proper and transparent consultation by the Design Team.

Failure to deal with correspondence by Design Team.

Failure to deal properly with telephone calls by Design Team.

False statements made by Design Team.

Inadequate and misleading notices of changes by Design Team.

Failure by Design Team to survey areas prior to implementation of schemes.

Where Design Team do survey, they do so only at times of day

and days of week to prove their own faulty schemes.

Failure by Design Team to inform local councillors of changes regarding their Ward.

Incompetent drafting of Orders by Council.

Failure to take account of local conditions.

Failure to take account of local conditions when these change.

Failure to take account of lack of driveways in areas where dropped kerbs are not permitted

Failure to take account of lack of parking spaces for residents outside flats.

The inclusion of roads in controlled zones where there is no parking conflict.

Failure to take account of conflicting uses of the road on days when the zones do not apply.

The provision of exclusive use bays, where dual use bays would promote a better use of the road.

Deliberate failure to properly plate the bays and yellow lines.

Single yellow lines in places where double yellow lines should be placed.

Deliberate failure to ensure that days and times of bays in a single road are uniform.

Capricious and arbitrary setting of times of operation.

The setting of times of operation of bays in a sectarian way.

Failure to take account of religious needs of residents in setting times of operation.

Cost of residents? permits are uniform yet some roads have residents? bays for 5 hours a week

and other roads 50 hours a week.

Failure to give extra time at machine where extra money is paid. This is theft.

The proposal by Brian Coleman that the elderly and deaf use mobile phones to pay

for parking tickets. (see letter below)

Failure to repair broken meters.

Failure to deal properly with PCN appeals.

Failure to deal honestly with PCN appeals.

Failure to compensate residents for time wasted where PCNs incorrectly given.

Failure by Councillors to put the majority of their residents before their party.

Making the residents of the CPZs pay for the Council deficit

Failure of Council to take account of local issues better than UK Government,

thereby defeating the whole purpose of local government.

The subversion of democracy by the whip system.

The questionable position of MPs Matthew Offord and Mike Freer, who were previously Councillors,

to properly deal with complaints about the Council.

The questionable position of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles,

to properly deal with errant Conservative Councils.

[garnwba]

A lot about how badly it is run, increase charges but no mention of wanting or wishing that the CPZ was removed though is there gsirett.......

[Loz]

garnwba Wrote:

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

> A lot about how badly it is run, increase charges but no mention of wanting or wishing that the CPZ

> was removed though is there gsirett.......

No, but that would solve most of them.

[first mate]

I find it hard to believe that such wholesale criticism of CPZ coexists with a desire for the system to remain in place.

[BrandNewGuy]

Perhaps they think it's almost impossible to get rid of a CPZ once it's in place?

[alice]

is it all done and dusted or can i still have my say somewhere official

[first mate]

You can still have your say:

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.

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

Regards [email protected]

07903 964130

Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich Ward

If you read through the last few pages of the thread you will also find names of councillors and emails addy's trying to push CPZ through

as well as others with different views. You can email all of them letting them know what you think.

[gsirett]

More happy CPZ stories. This time from the good people of North Dulwich

http://www.cpzdulwich.net/

What REALLY worries me are the comments about the way that the data was manipulated in order to build a case in favour. What worries me more, is that it is the same council officer, Paull Gellard, writing a report on OUR area right now

I previously lived in Wyneham Road and remember the 2005 consultation. Subsequently I moved to the other side of the hill where a CPZ has recently been introduced in the Herne Hill Road, Ferndene Road area. Based off these experiences I have the following observations and recommendations to make.

1) Mobilise! The council rely on residents inertia, weariness and fatalism to push these things through. Lobby loud and hard. In a large section of our roads - about a third of the now CPZ - a petition against the CPZ proposal attracted over 250 signatures as compared to the 73 people who subsequently voted in favour through the official consultation questionnaire. The Council dismissed the petition on the grounds it was not 'statistically comparable' to the official consultation. Setting aside the serious questions this raises about the demcratic process the important lesson to learn is this: of the 250 people who signed the petition only 72 made the effort to complete the official questionnaire. Inertia, of which I was guilty too, cost this area dearly.

2)Do not rely on your councillors to support you. Central government has a massive budget shortfall and consequently local governmenmt is and will feel the squeeze. You live in nice big expensive houses: no self respecting ambitious councillor will help you avoid the implementation of a lucrative annuity revenue stream. In our instance residents failed to observe that the ward councillor was also head of finance for Lambeth Council.

3) Think about who will get parking fines or have their cars towed away. It will not be the regular drive-train commuters - they will observe the change and simply park their cars elsewhere. Assuming the CPZ will operate between 12 and 2pm, those impacted by penalties will be YOU, directly or indirectly. They will catch i) visiting friends, family or workmen who either don't notice the signs, misunderstand the signs, or who simply loose track of time and overrun the meter or 12pm watershed; ii)residents who forget to renew their permits on time or who park two inches of their back wheels on the swathes of new (and largely purposeless) yellow lines that always accompany the introduction of any CPZ.

4)Where residents are opposed make sure that they respond to the official consultation. In our CPZ the percentage of residents (of the ultimate CPZ area) who voted in favour of the proposal was 16%, and against 8%. 74% did not respond. Based on those numbers the final consultation report concluded that "a strong majority" had voted in favour of the CPZ proposals. The report is in fact riddled with dishonest statements and misuse of statistics, but the lesson is this: we let the council do this to us. We failed to mobilise the vote and we did not properly scrutinise and challenge the consultation report at the right time.

[Bobby P]

That is indeed ridiculous. 16% in favour is a "strong majority"?

Pretty clear the Council's tactics (which are being used again for the new CPZ proposed) are dishonest.

I hope we are less "inert" in our response, but I fear the Council will ignore petitions etc. as they clearly did in the N.Dulwich example.

[peterstorm1985]

I wouldn't be surprised if the council ignored a petition; they are simply too easy to fill out. Even where the petition includes a proper record of addresses, and so could be considered valid representation, it still takes a lot less effort to sign your name on a bit of paper handed to you on the doorstep, or on the local shop counter, than filling out a consultation document online or writing to anyone. If I were trying to judge the wishes of the local residents I would tend to give far more weight to those who responded in a more formal manner.

A petition carries the risk that some people have been 'encouraged' to sign when they actually don't care about the issue, or it's not relevant to them, so there is an argument that it will be distorted.

With regard to the example of North Dulwich, 16% may not seem high but it is double the 8%, so would appear - on the face of it - to represent a strong majority of those who were interested enough to respond.

I filled out the consultation document and also wrote an email to the leader of the council. It may be too late to fill out the consultation document but I would encourage anyone who feels strongly against the CPZ to at least write to their local councillor and add a voice. If you use that old fashioned thing of paper and an envelope you may find that even more notice is taken.

What about putting your opposition on a Christmas card - then it may remain on someone's desk to remind them?

[first mate]

We cannot just let the council impose something on us like this. There must and will be a way to stop it. If the majority of ED want CPZ, then so be it, however, until there is clear evidence for that we must ensure that this process is stopped. There are others on here who have a much clearer sense of process, so what should be the next stage?

[fredricketts]

Can we not petition our MP (Tessa Jowell)? that is, if she is not in favour of it,

MP are supposed to take notice of their voters.

[peckhamboy]

Bobby P Wrote:

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

> That is indeed ridiculous. 16% in favour is a

> "strong majority"?

>

> Pretty clear the Council's tactics (which are

> being used again for the new CPZ proposed) are

> dishonest.

>

> I hope we are less "inert" in our response, but I

> fear the Council will ignore petitions etc. as

> they clearly did in the N.Dulwich example.

This is a point I raised previously - after the session at Grove Vale library, when I specifically asked about the response threshold required to push this through. The answer was that a 20% response rate is sufficient to constitute a valid consultation, and a simple majority of those who respond will suffice to approve the scheme. So, in short, if 10% of residents of the zone are in favour, that might be enough for the council to push ahead with the CPZ.

[first mate]

Yes, PeckhamBoy you are right.

It does seem as though the council are relying on resident apathy (in reality too busy trying to earn a living and too tired for anything else) to drive this through. The tone from us all is slightly defeatist in that whatever we do it'll happen. This cannot be and I would ask Gisrett and the organisers of the petition, to lead another campaign against this.How can we energise those who signed the petitions against CPZ?

Is it worth involving Tessa Jowell- what do others think? Surely she must read these forums? Are the press aware- would a national be interested in locals fighting the council on something like this?

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

To be fair to Tessa Jowell her constituency is made up of 8 wards - 5 in Lambeth and 3 in Southwark. Her constituency is SW of Grove Vale which forms the border for her. NE of Grove Vale is Harriet Harman's constituency.

I think you'll find most politicians whose area includes the proposed streets will be horrified. Some streets will probably be in favour of controlled parking and clearly lots of people outside those streets who will be against. Whatever a politician does will alienate some faction.

You'll probably find politicians with no proposed streets in their wards much more likely to join the antis because they wont have any voters who want it.

The process. Normally after such a public consultation for a scheme funded by TfL the cabinet member would decide based upon an officer report. Cllr Barrie Hargrove kindly agreed to my request made before the public consultation that the two relevant community councils be asked for their views to add to the material Barrie will consider. Hardly the actions of someone trying to stiffle debate.

Timings. Camberwell CC will meet 8 Jan and Dulwich CC will meet 24 Jan. Barrie would decide in Feb. IF any proposals were to be implimented that would be before 31 March and the financial year end.

The officer report should be issued 7 days before the 8 Jan. Due to holidays etc I believe that it will be issued around 23 December. When it is I will place a link on this thread or if small enough attach it or both.

Hope this helps.

[first mate]

james,

many thanks for all of that.

I'm interested to know where petitions come into all of this. Are they factored into the report? Will they be presented and discussed at the Community Councils? If the petition is not factored into the officer report, I would ask why not?

What is key for those against is to be clear about how to use to process to ensure our voices are heard and properly taken account of. Those council members in favour have an advantage in that they know the process inside out and can use this to block voices against CPZ, in this case. I'm sure you appreciate the distinction between 'hearing' and taking account of. Voices may be heard but go unacknowledged and this is my fear- that the substantial numbers against in the local petitions will be rejected on the basis of process detail.

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

I would expect the report to talk about all data officers have received including from petitions. Equally they've been set the task of assessing controlled parking on specific streets so the more specific a petition and the closer a signature I'd guess the more weight it/they would carry. but I've never written such a report. You might want to refer to the relatively recent report about the Herne Hill CPZ extension into Holmdene Avenue. A bit different in that residents were asking for this extension but I'd guess the format would be similar if more complex on these ED station proposals.

Another way to use petitions is to ask to present them to the Community Council. You'll need to decide which Community council as I imagine (but you may wish to check) a petition can only be used once.

[gm99]

You might be interested to read the report for the Lucas Gardens and Southampton Way 1st and 2nd stage CPZ consultation. This explicitly followed the introduction of the neighbouring East Camberwell CPZ, given concerns about displacement, which was duly found.

In the case of the Lucas Gardens area, it is notable that not all streets consulted reported that they wanted a CPZ, and overall a majority of respondents indicated that they wouldn't change their mind even if a CPZ was introduced in neighbouring steets. Moreover, two streets that rejected the CPZ also had the highest response rate to the consultation (p. 15). Nevertheless, the recommendation being put forward is that they should be covered by a CPZ anyway, not least in order to 'provide a logical CPZ boundary'. So in that case the Council knows better.

It is striking in the language of the report that the authors routinely acknowledge the fact that the profile of respondents is not representative of the local community (and in any case only a small minority actually responded at all), which rather implies that the consultation model employed is not suitable in the first place and begs the question whether using the reponses to form any kind of conclusion about local opinion has any validity at all (in the statistical sense)? Related, it might be argued that the statistics and graphics presented lend a false sense of accuracy.

Finally, it may be relevant to note reference to a petition being taken into consideration - in this case in favour of the CPZ (pp. 4-5).

[Edited for typo]

[first mate]

You illustrate the suspicion that many have about the process- where the 'listening' council is, in reality, not listening at all, but has an agenda it is determined to see through, come what may.

Earlier in the thread someone mentioned that it might be possible to challenge the lawfulness of the process in this case. Does anyone have a clear idea how this might be done?

[gsirett]

It really saddens me, but that is EXACTLY what is happening here.

Put simply, this is not a consultation ( as neither were north dulwich CPZ or southampton way), this is a justification exercise for a pre- made decision

The over inflated advantages, the selective anslysis of data, their own admission that there us no objective formulas used, their arbitrary ignoring of petitions.....this absolutly stinks

Oh, and it all comes down to a decision to be made by one man: cllr Barrie Hargrove. The same man who refused to extend the consultation by 2 days to allow all the 1000's who hadn't been informed to respond.

Any councillors reading this: you need to act. Stop sitting in the fence with " the consultation will give us what people want". The consultation looks flawed& biased and verging on corrupt

[first mate]

gsirett,

I think it is clear that the councillors driving this through have a process that has worked for them before and on that basis they will stick to it. Their process presents the illusion of consultation and so long as they can get away with the illusion they will carry on. These guys are set on a course of action and I really do think that our appeals to 'listen' or 'think again' are pointless.

Some councillors may want CPZ as a money -making exercise, others because they are anti car, others because they really believe it is for the better, but all of them must know in their bones that the process is weighted- in that sense it does feel slightly machiavellian.

The only hope is to challenge the process in law and to see if it stands up to scrutiny- so what we need is a lawyer prepared to take this on.

[fredricketts]

Any councillors reading this: you need to act. Stop sitting in the fence with " the consultation will give us what people want". The consultation looks flawed& biased and verging on corrupt

[mynamehere]

Fred you need to email [email protected]. Mr Hargrove is the force behind parking as well as other things. People who actually make decisions often hide behind others who take the flac for different reasons in their stead

[gsirett]

UNBELIEVABLE

It a response from Southwark Council, where they are REFUSING to provide the raw data from the CPZ consultation under a Freedom of Information request.

I am absolutely gobsmacked. This shows, the complete lack of transparency of this "consultation" process.

It is quite clear that this department of Southwark council have an agenda of introducing CPZ's. Is it, therefore, right that they are the only people allowed to conduct a statistical analysis of this data ?

Why, possibly would Southwark council refuse to provide this information to a local resident ? They give an explanation, but it is just nonsense

1) All consultation reports that I have seen to date (such as http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=22397) DO NOT CONTAIN THE RAW DATA. They contain an analysis and summaries of that data, presented in a way that Council officers see fit. This leaves the process open to a "presentation layer" being applied.

I asked for the raw responses (obviously anaonomised) so that we could be confident in their process and could perform some alternative analysis.

This would stop Southwark pulling tricks like lumping all responses that are not directly within the CPZ into a "outside area" category and then claiming that they have no value because they could come from anywhere

2) There will be little time before the community council meetings for anybody to perform decent analysis of the data.

This stinks

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Environment

Date: 16 December 2011 10:30

Subject: Information request response (ref: 189530)

To: xxxxx

Southwark Council - Information request (FOI/EIR) Response

Our reference: 189530

Dear Mr xxxx

Re: Your request for information: 189530

Thank you for your request for information received on 25 November 2011.

You requested: I would like to make a FOI request for the following information:

I would like the "raw" , unsummarised, response data for the recent electronic consultation preformed on the Southwark council website in relation to a proposed Controlled Parking Zone in the Gove Vale area. For the removal of doubt, this infrmation was collected at this area of the southwark website:

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200140/parking_projects/2280/grove_vale_area/1

I am not sure of the precise data range that this data was collected, I know that the consultation finished on 11 November. I require all responses for the duration of the consultation.

Specifically, I wish to know the answers given by each respondent to every question asked in the consolation. Also any other information collected during the response (such as time of response)

I understand that the responses will contain personal details so am happy to have those removed or anonomised. However, it is essential that the respondents location can be identified (as it is material to the consultation) therefore I ask that postcodes remain.

Under Section 22 of the Freedom Of Information Act, which exempts information requested if it is intended for future publication; the raw data requested will form part of the Grove Vale Car Parking Zone Consultation Report which will be published, as a final draft, with the papers for Camberwell and Dulwich Community Councils and we consider it reasonable in all the circumstances to withhold this information.

The authority also considers it to be in the public interest not to disclose, given the nearness of publication and that it is better to publish to the world at large rather than individuals.

The Camberwell Community Council meeting will take place on 10 January 2012, details:

http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=175&MId=3882&Ver=4

The Dulwich Community Council meeting will take place on 24 January 2012, details:

http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=176&MId=3992&Ver=4

This letter acts as a section 17 notice.

.If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your request and wish to make a complaint or request a review of our decision, you should write to the:

Corporate Freedom of Information Officer

The Governance team (2nd floor)

PO Box 64529

London. SE1 5LX

Email: [email protected]

If you are not content with the outcome of your appeal, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. Generally, the Information Commissioner cannot make a decision unless you have first exhausted our internal appeal procedure and you should contact him within 2 months of the outcome of your internal appeal

Further information is available through the Information Commissioner at the:

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire. SK9 5AF

Telephone: 01625 545 700

Internet: www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk

Yours sincerely

John Williamson

Business Support

[email protected]