E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[peterstorm1985]

Senor Chevalier Wrote:

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

> Interesting thought about equalizing the impact of

> parking - setting the tariff at a low enough rate

> (or free) should ensure that the displaced cars

> were those of people who do not reside in the

> streets where the CPZ was brought in. That would

> be a more interesting experiment.

The simplest way of proving whether the parking problem around ED station is a matter of too many residents having cars (which is my interpretation of the stats) or of commuters (which is the perception of some residents) would be to introduce the CPZ with free permits for residents and immediately adjacent businesses. I would have no objection to this idea at all as it would not discriminate against those who cannot afford it. Then, once that argument was settled, a very different discussion could be had.

What a shame that Southwark would not entertain such an idea for a trial period.

[Penguin68]

I have just (11:30am, Tuesday morning - 3rd week in January) driven down Ondine road, one of the CPZ target roads - there were 19 parking spaces free - 'better' parking (not that there was a need) would have freed up another 2 or more. Most people are back at work now - so I don't feel there is (on one snap-shot occasion) much case to be made of a 'commuter' parking blight locally. Certainly it may be that some residents weren't able to park immediately outside their own house - but that has been true for the last 30 years in residential streets in London - frankly you have to go back to the 1950s and 60s (when there were far fewer cars on the roads) to find a time when always parking outside your own house was a reasonable expectation. Most people, it seemed to me, returning to Ondine, would have been able to park with 3-5 houses of their own. Actually, many people were probably already parked outside their own houses.

[peckhamboy]

Or even at minimal cost to cover the incremental administrative costs of introducing one, rather than claiming it is not revenue-driven whilst deriving huge surpluses from CPZ fees. Other boroughs (not very far from here - like Greenwich) have CPZ fees at around ?65 or less pa. If the council's policy was to set fees at a fair (non-profit making) level, and allow residents an allocation of free visitor permits (say 30 per year) before charging for additional permits, I would be much more likely to support one - assuming, as ever, that the need for one could be demonstrated in the first place.

[Peckhampam]

Ondine Road has been very sparsely parked for some time

[mikeb]

A true trial process would automatically expire unless explicitly renewed (with some sort of democratic control e.g. further consultation).

Also, it would be helpful to disaggregate the impact of (a) CPZ and (b) reduction in legal parking from further lines etc. There are already plenty of laws to control unsafe / dangerous / obstructive parking so I would be interested in the justification for the reduction in legal parking.

[Huguenot]

"A true trial process would...."

Not at all - a trial can be anything you like so long as the terms and reference points are clear.

"I would be interested in the justification for the reduction in legal parking"

I don't think that's the case - the road markings will make explicit what is already illegal but currently only patchily enforced.

A few locals have said on here that they think it's outrageous that the new road markings would prevent them parking 'safely' on corners and across people's driveways.

Mind you it's a particular habit of car drivers to think that they know best - whether it's parking, drunk driving, speeding or overtaking around blind corners.

[mikeb]

H - what you say on trials is logically true but I'm afraid the council's attitude during this consultation mean that I wouldn't trust it to implement a CPZ on a temporary basis unless it automatically expired.

On the other point, surely the solution to badly-enforced rules is not more rules but more enforcement. Unless there is some doubt about whether the "unsafe" parking really is that unsafe - in which case I would question the need for more road markings.

[peckhamboy]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

>

> I don't think that's the case - the road markings

> will make explicit what is already illegal but

> currently only patchily enforced.

>

No - it would make illegal what is currently legal (albeit contrary to non-enforceable Highway Code guidance)

[mikeb]

Parts of the highway code are legally enforcable - also in legislation. E.g.

=============

242

You MUST NOT leave your vehicle or trailer in a dangerous position or where it causes any unnecessary obstruction of the road.

[Laws RTA 1988, sect 22 & CUR reg 103]

============

That would seem to me to be perfectly reasonable.

[Huguenot]

It was noticeable that the regulations on parking on corners in central ED (I lived on Crawthew Grove) weren't enforced until the installation of dropped kerbs.

It was as if local government correctly guessed that the regulation couldn't be effectively policed until there was a 'visible' reminder of why parking on corners was dangerous - in this case the safe transit of roads by the young families, elderley and disabled that the dropped kerbs would assist.

Even so there was outrage (on this forum) by people who felt that their right to park wherever they wished superceded the rights of anyone else to make safe use of our communal environment.

Their response was to target wardens, and in one case actually subjecting them to abuse and intimidation (I don't remember if a physical attack was involved).

[gm99]

Conceivably a survey of parking could cross-reference number plates of parked cars with DVLA data about where the cars are registered to establish what proportion of cars are visiting/commuters rather than local/residents/businesses.

[TheArtfulDogger]

gm99 Wrote:

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

> Conceivably a survey of parking could

> cross-reference number plates of parked cars with

> DVLA data about where the cars are registered to

> establish what proportion of cars are

> visiting/commuters rather than

> local/residents/businesses.

a little too big brother if you ask me.

[gsirett]

This coming Tuesday, our elected representatives will vote on whether to allow paid controlled parking in East Dulwich. We?ve had a long and detailed debate here on this forum about a CPZ. My views remain unchanged: the scheme(s) put forward by Southwark are fundamentally flawed, will not deliver their objectives (to reduce commuter parking) and will have an overall detrimental effect on the local community as a whole. I know there are parking problems, this scheme will not solve them, it will move them.

The vote on Tuesday will be based on Southwarks own consultation that found 70% of respondants are opposed to the scheme and 20/22 roads consulted are opposed to the scheme. In fact, the schemes that Southwark council are currently proposing have been thought up AFTER the consultation results as a cynical attempt to force controlled parking in to our area (IMO)

Despite all of this, the East Dulwich Lib Dem Councillors are intent on pursuing their own agenda on this. These people are showing their true colours. They call themselves liberal (which implies ?free?) but, in fact, put their party policy over the will of the people who elected them. They will say ?no, we?ve got to think about everybody?. I just don?t buy that. When the residents of Bermondsey fought (successfully) the introduction of a CPZ, they noted how useless their Lib Dem councillors had been:

http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/00,news,23484,5222,00.htm&print=yes

They also call themselves Democrats......hmmm.....I think they KNOW what the majority want here

I have asked James Barber time and time again how he?ll vote, but he?s refused to say. He?s come up with excuse after excuse ?got to get my thoughts together, the reports only just out, it?s Christmas, I?m undecided?. And, frankly, I take offence at James Barber telling me that he?s trying to do the right thing, whilst cynically manipulating the consultation results to build a case ?for?

See: http://jamesbarber.mycouncillor.org.uk/2011/12/23/controlled-parking-consultation/

But the time for James to vote is fast approaching. Is he going to do the right thing and vote with that 70% majority or will he do the same as his lib dem collegues in Bermondsey and abstain ? (his voters are watching)

Two weeks ago Camberwell council did the right thing: they clearly rejected the CPZ ?as democrats?. They acknowledged that such a clear message from the electorate cannot be ignored. After all, isn?t that the whole point of democracy?

I know one local councillor, Tobey Eckersley ( a Tory), who has already stated that:

?I expect to express and represent that view [ that the majority of people in his ward were opposed to the scheme], pursuant to my representative duties, at the Dulwich Community Council meeting on 24 January?

This man has got the decency and honesty to vote based on the wishes of the people who voted for HIM.

James Barber, Rosie Shimmel & Jonathan Mitchell are the three East Dulwich Councillors. They are all Lib Dems. I fear that they will all block vote (or abstain at best) ; putting their political agenda ahead of their voters wishes. If they do, then it will be a sad day for this area, a sad day for democracy and a sad day for the liberal democrat party. They will have acted neither liberally or democratically.

If they don?t, then I will enjoy a plate of slowly cooked trilby with a Havana sauce.

Luckily, there are 6 other councillors on the Community Council. Hopefully these people will see sense and not let their political agenda prevail.

It is essential that people show these people the strength of local feeling and that we are not prepared to be trodden on like this: .MAKE SURE YOU ATTEND THE COMMUNITY COUNCIL MEETING TO EXPRESS YOUR VIEWS

7PM This Tuesday

St Barnabas Church, Carlton Avenue

edited to say: sorry this is now party political......but thats not my fault. Before anybody acuuses me of being an agent of Cameron or Milliband, I'm not.

[eddie]

>

> edited to say: sorry this is now party

> political......but thats not my fault. Before

> anybody acuuses me of being an agent of Cameron or

> Milliband, I'm not.

The Liberal Democrats have proven at a national level that they will only follow their own agenda so that it suits them best. They promised to scrap tuition fees ? they voted to treble them, they promised to oppose a rise in VAT, they voted for it. I could go on. Why? Because power is more important to them than ethics.

The local people have voted against CPZ. Local councillors, like their counterparts in Camberwell should vote against it at the Community Council Meeting and prove that they truly represent the people. BUT, I suspect as previously suggested, that they will abstain so that in the future they can state that they did not vote for CPZ. I hope that the local politicians, unlike their ?dear leader? have the balls to vote as representatives of the local people.

ATTEND THE MEETING NEXT WEEK

[davidh]

I had an email from st james the other day in which he stated without qualification that hardly anyone wants a cpz. he added that in fact very few of the people in the streets affected wanted it either.

this, he said, was "very awkward" for him.

yes, jimmy baby, being an honest politican is sometimes tough.

bear in mind that we all have long memories. abstaining is NOT good enough. you must vote with the overwhelming wishes of the people. anything else is wriggling and smokescreen. I know that is what the lib dems seem do best, but just this once do the right and democratic thing.

[garnwba]

gsirett - any chance you might be blowing this just an incy bit out of proportion?

[James Barber]

Hi Eddie,

The Labour party ran on no student fees but introduced them. At a national level in a coalition you don't get your whole manifesto implimented.

And yes I will be attending the meeting and I have no intention of abstaining - I think I've abstained once in 6 years and that was at a main planning committee.

Hi davidh,

I think you're misrepresenting my email - feel free to post the whole email here with your original.

Hi grisett,

I think I was always going to offend you - even if I do vote NO on Tuesday.

The consultation was clearly asking streets what they thought, it said the results would be analysed and reported on a street by street basis. It wasn't a referendum.

Clearly all the roads consulted in South Camberwell said no so it was an easy vote to make. In many respects I wish we had the same consultation results in East Dulwich ward but we don't. SOme of our streets have said yes and others have said yes if a neighbouring street were to get controls.

Someone/s have been dishonestly going around telling people parking meters are proposed for Lordship lane/North Cross Road - they're not. Others has been told controlled parking across all East Dulwich is proposed - it isn't. This smearing makes it hard to take into accoutn the petitions because we don't know whether they're about what people think is proposed or what is actually proposed. What I find disappointing is people with real problems have been lost in all this and no one is suggesting any other solution/s.

As for Liberal Democrats. We have no whip on this or any other commmunity council decision. I'm reasonably sure Lib Dem Cllr Crookshank-Hilton will vote NO. The Village ward Tories I'm sure will vote NO because they have no streets involved and you've organised a petition against which they'd be sensible politically to follow. I'm sure if the situation was reversed they'd also be in a quandary to decide what's best. Politically the easy route would be to vote NO but I've knocked on all these East Dulwich doors many times and will be knocking in the future and I have to be able to explian my vote - not just say I felt bullied.

[first mate]

"others has been told controlled parking across all East Dulwich is proposed - it isn't."

James, come on, you know that the displacement effect will mean that large sections of ED are likely to become CPZ once a few streets are actioned.

You keep citing streets that say they'll have CPZ if the adjacent street gets it- that is because of displacement, they are not in favour of CPZ as a principle.

CPZ is not a solution it moves the problem on to a new street, until the whole area is CPZ and then we are at the mercy of council permit hikes and all the other shenanigans we hear of in other CPZ zones.

No doubt you'll have plenty to say on the subject at the Dulwich Communmity Council meeting on Tuesday 24th.

[buddug]

James wrote: "The Labour party ran on no student fees but introduced them."

Oh, so that's all right then. God, do you people not have any ethics?!

And he added: "As for Liberal Democrats. We have no whip on this or any other commmunity council decision."

So why did you tell davidh in a letter that it was "very awkward" for you? Come on, James, what have you been promising to people?

[gsirett]

> The consultation was clearly asking streets what

> they thought, it said the results would be

> analysed and reported on a street by street basis.

> It wasn't a referendum.

> Clearly all the roads consulted in South

> Camberwell said no so it was an easy vote to make.

> In many respects I wish we had the same

> consultation results in East Dulwich ward but we

> don't. SOme of our streets have said yes and

> others have said yes if a neighbouring street were

> to get controls.

James: 2 out of 22 streets can be classified as saying "yes". These two were Derwent Grove and Tintagel. On Derwent Grove there was a "majority" of 7 (seven) and on Tintagel, a majoreity of 3 (three).

That is a fact. The result of a fairly conducted, comprehensive consultation.

Are you REALLY still using a majority of 10 (in total) as an argument against the:

70% overall opposition

c.2000 petition signitures

20/22 Roads having a "majority"

Local business community saying "no"

You say its "not a referendum". Fine. Understood. But if such overwhelming results are to be ignored, then what on earth was the point of a ?80k (I think, please correct if I'm wrong) consultation if your decsion is going to be based on anecdotal "evidence" ?

> Someone/s have been dishonestly going around

> telling people parking meters are proposed for

> Lordship lane/North Cross Road - they're not.

> Others has been told controlled parking across all

> East Dulwich is proposed - it isn't. This smearing

> makes it hard to take into accoutn the petitions

> because we don't know whether they're about what

> people think is proposed or what is actually

> proposed. What I find disappointing is people with

> real problems have been lost in all this and no

> one is suggesting any other solution/s.

Like you, I wouldn't condone this. In my debate with you, I have tried to use hard fact & evidence. But if Southwark Council attempt to impose such things without any communication with the local community, then these things will happen.

Also, its worth bearing in mind that the official consultation proposal, sent to all "zone residents" managed to list (from memory) 13 advtantages of CPZs and not a single disadvantage. I'd argue that THAT disinformation is worse than chinse whispers about where the CPZ will be.

> As for Liberal Democrats. We have no whip on this

> or any other commmunity council decision. I'm

> reasonably sure Lib Dem Cllr Crookshank-Hilton

> will vote NO. The Village ward Tories I'm sure

> will vote NO because they have no streets involved

> and you've organised a petition against which

> they'd be sensible politically to follow. I'm sure

> if the situation was reversed they'd also be in a

> quandary to decide what's best. Politically the

> easy route would be to vote NO but I've knocked on

> all these East Dulwich doors many times and will

> be knocking in the future and I have to be able to

> explian my vote - not just say I felt bullied.

You feel bullied? If thats me (or my words) I will offer a full apology (I am being quite seroius). PM me

Personally, I'm feeling quite bullied by Southwark Council over controlled parking.

[buddug]

Gsirett wrote: "Personally, I'm feeling quite bullied by Southwark Council over controlled parking."

Nail. On. Head.

[puzzled]

barber never debates; he merely claims misrepresentation. he delights in obfuscation. he does,however, say one thing clearly. he says he will not abstain.

I do not believe he still has an open mind on the subject, so why doesn't he admit that he's going to vote for a cpz, cos we all know he just dying to do it!

he can feel free to prove me wrong

[buddug]

Puzzled, "obfuscate" is spot on, and so is "twist", "spin" and "mislead". On his "Can I help" thread he's unbelievably just written: "I've had lots of East Dulwich ward residents and some businesses tell me they want controlled parking. I've had some say they don't."

To which I could only answer: "I can't believe it! He's spinning again. "I've had lots" for and "some" against. This is beyond shameful James. Your wording deliberately implies most are for CPZ, when the figures clearly show, and you have admitted it, that the majority are against. You are really digging your own grave here.

[Huguenot]

You still using the CPZ as a vehicle for your personal persecution of James Barber, buddug?

If some of the challenges others have made are not party political, then why are they singling out the Lib Dems? As gsirrett pointed out, there are 6 others who are never named or their party affiliation cited?

[buddug]

Huguenot, if James gets his way on the CPZ - and it's obvious what that is - it is the ramifications that will prove to be personal - to most residents and business who live here as well as to the whole character of East Dulwich and adjacent areas.