CPZ...the results are in.....brace yourselves....

[Chick]

Where do you get off? It's anything but "hard-left"

"but then the hard-left leaning council cares not one jot for the "affluent" people (as they see it) living or trading in the area"

Do you have any evidence?

[Rockets]

Where I get off very much depends on to where I might be travelling....;-)

For a start our local Goose Green ward councillor is a self-proclaimed Marxist....and Marxism is now rife within the Labour party at all levels from Jeremy Corbyn through to local councillors.

Since Jeremy Corbyn took leadership of the Labour party there has been a root and branch effort to clear the party, at all levels, of anyone with more centrist views and this has filtered all the way through to local councils and councillors. It is why Tom Watson set-up a more centrist group to give Labour MPs who weren't hard-left leaning a chance to have their voice heard and to help determine policy as policy-making had been overrun by Marxist leaning members.

Additionally, hard-left groups like Momentum (or Maomentum as many centrist Labour party members refer to it) have been targeting Labour councils to oust more centrist Labour members to be replaced by Corbynistas with more hardline left leanings. They have been running training courses for local councillors to help attack the seats and prepare them for roles.

This has impacted Soutwark and the policies and approaches we are now seeing are a reflection of this.

[cella]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Where I get off very much depends on to where I

> might be travelling....;-)

>

> For a start our local Goose Green ward councillor

> is a self-proclaimed Marxist....and Marxism is now

> rife within the Labour party at all levels from

> Jeremy Corbyn through to local councillors.

>

> Since Jeremy Corbyn took leadership of the Labour

> party there has been a root and branch effort to

> clear the party, at all levels, of anyone with

> more centrist views and this has filtered all the

> way through to local councils and councillors. It

> is why Tom Watson set-up a more centrist group to

> give Labour MPs who weren't hard-left leaning a

> chance to have their voice heard and to help

> determine policy as policy-making had been overrun

> by Marxist leaning members.

>

> Additionally, hard-left groups like Momentum (or

> Maomentum as many centrist Labour party members

> refer to it) have been targeting Labour councils

> to oust more centrist Labour members to be

> replaced by Corbynistas with more hardline left

> leanings. They have been running training courses

> for local councillors to help attack the seats and

> prepare them for roles.

>

> This has impacted Soutwark and the policies and

> approaches we are now seeing are a reflection of

> this.

Massively strong overreaction to a comparatively minor single issue in the area.

[Rockets]

Hardly, ever since the Lib Dems lost their council seats the council has had carte-blanche to do as they please. And they have been.

The CPZ, and the charging for waste collections, and the charging for park car parks, I can assure, are but the tip of the iceberg for East Dulwich and surrounding areas. So it isn't a single issue, nor is the CPZ a minor issue for Lordship Lane - as has been debated ad infinitum on this forum by those concerned about its impact on the majority who live in the area.

[cella]

I was referring to the cpz a propos the title. Most other local councils, regardless of political affinity, have similiarly introduced charges for certain services and have introduced cpz schemes after consultation. I am in favour of the cpz but less so on the garden waste charge as it may be counter productive. The idea that the current council is Marxist is laughable.

[jamesmcash]

Hi all

The council's proposals are roughly in line with what we local councillors suggested as a compromise option (outlined here: https://www.jamesmcash.com/blog/controlled-parking-in-east-dulwich).

However there's a couple of issues outstanding which I want to look into further.

The first is the times of operation. There was a clear majority in the 'Grove Vale' area for an all day CPZ but a majority for a partial CPZ in the 'Peckham West' area. I'm keen to work out how we can reconcile this.

The second is about the boundary on Melbourne Grove. As it stands, the road is split in two at East Dulwich Grove but it seems like there is strong support from residents in the section south of East Dulwich Grove but north of Ashbourne Grove or Chesterfield Grove for it to be extended slightly. I'm looking into how the numbers stack up on this.

If you live in the proposed area, or in this section of Melbourne Grove then I'd be happy to hear from you by email: [email protected]

I've been scouring through Das Capital but it seems that Marx is silent on these issues.

Best wishes

James

[Penguin68]

'strong support from residents in the section south of East Dulwich Grove but north of Ashbourne Grove or Chesterfield Grove for it to be extended slightly.'

And so the zone creeps on and on...

[Penguin68]

https://www.petrolprices.com/news/councils-pocket-more-than-320m-pcn-fines-one-year/

'Nuff said.... (Southwark is not the worst London offender - but clearly the motorist is the council milch cow de nos jours.)

[Jim1234]

Hilarious! This is the opposite of Marxism - it's a poll tax. If anyone in the labour party is to blame for this ideologically (they're not) then it would be the centerists.

[springfleur55]

There was a clear majority in the 'Grove Vale' area for an all day CPZ but a majority for a partial CPZ in the 'Peckham West' area. I'm keen to work out how we can reconcile this.

What is hard to reconcile here? Why can't the two areas both get what they asked for?

[Rockets]

James,

Was the support for the extension communicated via the consultation data or post publication of the proposals? Is it that upon seeing which streets are going to get a CPZ those in neighbouring streets have communicated concerns about displacement? Are you not opening yourself up to criticism of conducting a second consultation by canvassing input from those roads, per your note above?

Is the council still withholding the raw data from the consultation from those who have requested it?

[noelewilson]

And so the zone creeps on and on...

[noelewilson]

its upsetting to see james ,sill wants to go on and on to wants to increase it

[Charles Martel]

From his twitter it would appear Cllr. Livingstone has agreed the report, but has returned to two separate CPZ areas with the East Dulwich side operating all day.

It will be interesting to see the final plan. A previous council survey in 2011 for the last CPZ attempt found that an average of 80% of cars parked in the area then under consideration belonged to residents, 20% to non residents. How much of the 20% freed up by the CPZ will be lost to the planned number of new double yellow lines? It would seem from looking at the old plan for Elsie Road this would be net negative for residents parking.

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s27152/Appendix%20A%20Grove%20Vale%201st%20and%202nd%20stage%20CPZ%20consultation%20report.pdf pg33

[first mate]

Are Ashbourne, Chesterfield and Bassano street inside the CPZ?

[seenbeen]

This is going to increase pollution around the other side of LL as people drive round and round to find a space. I frequently walk from Goodrich Road to North Cross and you see the same cars coming backwards and forwards...it can only get worse

[harold76]

Nope - Ashbourne, Chesterfield and Bassano street will be the parking lot (more than now) for those avoiding the CPZ.

Hurrah...(from a resident of Chesterfield.

[eastdulwichlocal99]

As per the posted JPEG from Charles Martel, these roads are included in the CPZ which is what the original consultation results also confirmed. I'm unsure as to why they would have changed and on what basis..

[first mate]

I had thought it was a fairly clear no from streets on the south side of Melbourne Grove. James Mc Cash said he had been pushing hard for these roads not to be included as that was what residents wanted, just as the majority of residents close to the station said they did want CPZ. How curious then if just one man, Cllr Livingstone, can go with a majority 'vote' in one area but ignore it in another?

The proposal was that Chesterfield, Ashbourne, Bassano were not in the CPZ. I hope that has been upheld.

[eastdulwichlocal99]

.

[first mate]

Perhaps I can quite an earlier poster who responded to Cllr McAsh as follows:

"In response to question 1, I think the map in Figure 2 would be much more informative if Melbourne Grove was split into two. The responses showed that the section north of EDG is clearly in favour of a CPZ (hence it should be coloured green) and the section south of EDG is clearly against a CPZ (hence it should be coloured red). This would make it easier to see that the proposed zone is too big. Your suggestion of removing Melbourne Grove (south), Blackwater Street, Bassano Street, Chesterfield Grove and Ashbourne Grove from the proposed CPZ is a good one. None of these roads showed a clear majority in favour of a CPZ, with some clearly against a CPZ, so it seems unfair to impose one on them".

A number of streets were undecided and Ashbourne against, that means that for that area the majority is agianst CPZ. We were told that around the station 54% are in favour, therefore CPZ will be implemented. The same logic must be applied

throughout.

[eastdulwichlocal99]

.

[Penguin68]

The entire point of the CPZ was deter commuters

No, the entire point of the CPZ was to raise revenue for Southwark and was a formal part of Southwark's declared plan to massively reduce car usage (ideally stop it) within the borough, without regard to who is using the vehicles. There has never been clear evidence that the 'commuters' to be deterred are not those coming to work and serve the ED community, and certainly little evidence as to the scale and scope of the dreaded 'through' commuter.

This was all hearsay and guesswork.

Many people who 'voted' for the CPZ may have thought they were detering commuters, but this was a supposition only.

[Charles Martel]

eastdulwichlocal99 Wrote:

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

> As per the posted JPEG from Charles Martel, these

> roads are included in the CPZ which is what the

> original consultation results also confirmed. I'm

> unsure as to why they would have changed and on

> what basis..

Sorry if it was confusing. That map is a screen grab from the initial consultation results document where the streets inside the revised boundary are highlighted in yellow. The boundaries were redrawn after the councillors meeting at the end of April to only include the area north of Ashbourne Grove. I do not believe this boundary has changed.

The point is that the number of parking spaces available to residents in the zone is going to be decreased by the increase in double yellow lines, particularly on Elsie Road. Even more so were Ashbourne Grove were to be included. As it is the zone is small enough that the number of cars displaced by it will be relatively small. The surrounding streets are hardly empty of cars at present anyway which obviously limits the amount of additional parking that is possible in any one place. With a large area around a small CPZ the displacement problem should be self limiting, as it is now. The CPZ proposal was made by the council on the basis of making it easier for residents to park their cars, not the abolition of resident parking.

seenbeen wrote:

>This is going to increase pollution around the other side of LL as people drive round and round to find a space.

Almost all of the pollution in this area is from through traffic on Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove, Dog Kennel Hill and East Dulwich Road where you regularly see queues of stationary traffic in the morning and evening. A CPZ is going to do precisely nothing to change this. Catford has a CPZ which did nothing to prevent the pollution that is supposed to have played a role in the death of Ella Kissi-Debrah. Why? Because a CPZ does nothing to reduce through traffic and therefore nothing to reduce the pollution it creates.

People are still going to drive down Dog Kennel Hill and East Dulwich Grove then turn into Melbourne Grove as a shortcut between these two main roads and, CPZ or no CPZ, they are still going to get stuck trying to pass each other.

[eastdulwichlocal99]

This is a fair comment although it still fails to explain the logic in applying the CPZ boundaries.