former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[Sue]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> The planning application for a 9 foot advertising

> hoarding in the pavement outside East Dulwich

> station has been refused by planning officers.

xxxxxx

There were others proposed, weren't there? Have they all been refused?

[James Barber]

Hi Sue,

I was only aware of this one for East Dulwich.

However, you're correct others across the rest of Southwark have started to be applied for and some have been successful.

[Sue]

Sorry, I think I'm mixing it up with something else - revolving ads down Lordship Lane? Something like that. Which included one outside the station, I think.

[James Barber]

Hi Sue,

Several 9 foot advertising hoardings on pavements have been approved but the only one so far proposed for East Dulwich has been refused - it clashes with a proposed layby outside East Dulwich station.

[Sue]

Ah! A layby would be a good idea, to be able to drop people off at the station - is that what it would be for?

It's always a pain having to try to stop near the station (illegally I guess) and shove people/luggage out of the car as quickly as possible so as not to hold up traffic .....

[James Barber]

If you live near 27 Barry Road you may want to attend a public exhibition this Saturday 10am to 1pm at 27 Barry Road.

Proposal is to demolish the current bulding and for new disabled access and learning difficultiesbuilding. Pictures look nice but I'd be concerned about the garden buildings. Attached is letter I've received with a couple photo impressions of how it would look.

[gsirett]

James

would you be as good as to tell the people on this thread how you will be voting at the upcoming Community Council over the proposed controlled parking at East Dulwich station. You have failed to do so on the thread relating to it

You have made prevoius commitments, and I quote:

"And no I haven't prejudged what my reaction to residents responses. If it's clear they are for or against that will be what I try to ensure happens"

The consultation has now been completed and despite 70% of people saying "no" to a CPZ, 20/22 Roads rejecting it and nearly 2000 local rwesidents and busiensses signing peitions against, you have posted today that you're mind isn't yet made up. Even more concerning are your attmepts over the last couple of days to pressent such compounding results in a very innacurate way.

So, are you going to vote with the people who elected you or are you going to carry on with your own political agenda (without telling anyone) ?

For those of you reading who haven't been following our councillors activities, have a look at some of his posts today and make up your own mind. Oh, and bear it in mind at election time

[first mate]

James I too would like to know what you have decided with regard to CPZ, as I am sure would many others. You will be attending the Community Council in a position of influence and it is reasonable to ask how you will choose to use that influence? You have had sight of the consultation results and know the detail,you have spoken to residents and followed the debate on the forum. What else do you need to know before you decide on your recommendations? It is beginning to feel as though the Southwark consultation, which shows a majority against CPZ, is irrelevant in helping you to reach your conclusions.

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

The Dulwich Community Council where I need to have collected my thoughts and reached a conclusion is 24 January. I'm sure I'll reach a conclusion before then but the officers report only came out on 23 December and its now only 5 January and I did make it clear I was taking a break from non urgent work for Christmas until the new year.

But as I've stated the consultation asked 22 streets whether a majority on each of those streets wanted to be part of a controlled parking zone. Three of the 10 streets in East Dulwich ward have said yes bordering ones yes if a neighbouring street were proposed to proceed with controlled parking.

So options 2,3,4 and 5 could be argued for but with so many non residents of those streets signing petitions etc saying no to any controlled parking the decision isn't black and white for me. Hence the lack of a snap knee jerk decision.

Hi grisett,

I also asked you before Christmas who leaked the officers report to you and you've completely silent on that.

When do you think you'll answer that question?

[Chippy Minton]

grislett isn't a local councillor who has been elected by his/her peers!

Engaging in a "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" exchange is not approppriate.

[gedwina]

can we also keep the CPZ discussion to the appropriate thread?

[peckhamboy]

James - two (not three) streets said yes. And no streets bordering those ones said yes if a neighbouring street was included. And I would say there's a pretty strong (if not stronger) argument for Option 1 than any of the four you seem to have limited yourself to.

It seems from your comments on here that you have convinced yourself that there is a problem and that something must be done. Have you double checked the repsonse to the question "do you have problems parking"? The majority response was "no". So it's not even black and white that there is a problem in the first place yet you're determined to "fix" it. I hope that the remaining councillors are less blinkered than you are because it is clear to me that you will be voting for something to be done even though that goes against two thirds of the responses from people who have to live with your decisions.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi first mate,

> The Dulwich Community Council where I need to have

> collected my thoughts and reached a conclusion is

> 24 January. I'm sure I'll reach a conclusion

> before then but the officers report only came out

> on 23 December and its now only 5 January and I

> did make it clear I was taking a break from non

> urgent work for Christmas until the new year.

> But as I've stated the consultation asked 22

> streets whether a majority on each of those

> streets wanted to be part of a controlled parking

> zone. Three of the 10 streets in East Dulwich ward

> have said yes bordering ones yes if a neighbouring

> street were proposed to proceed with controlled

> parking.

> So options 2,3,4 and 5 could be argued for but

> with so many non residents of those streets

> signing petitions etc saying no to any controlled

> parking the decision isn't black and white for me.

> Hence the lack of a snap knee jerk decision.

>

> Hi grisett,

> I also asked you before Christmas who leaked the

> officers report to you and you've completely

> silent on that.

> When do you think you'll answer that question?

[gsirett]

James Barber Wrote:

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

.

> But as I've stated the consultation asked 22

> streets whether a majority on each of those

> streets wanted to be part of a controlled parking

> zone. Three of the 10 streets in East Dulwich ward

> have said yes bordering ones yes if a neighbouring

> street were proposed to proceed with controlled

> parking.

Here you go again: spin, spin, spin, carefully selcting data in order to paint the picture you want the people who voted for you to see.

The facts, James (from Southwarks own consultation):

20/22 street have said NO

70% of respondents have said NO

nearly 2000 people on petitions have said NO

The loacl business community has said NO

But you know these facts, don't you? You just seem to keep skipping them and highlighing anything you can find to justify the scheme that you have supported for so long. Oh, and blatently changing a few key numbers: thats cute.

shame on you

At no point during the debate on this or the offial consultation have you or anybody mentioned that a 1 or 3 Road only CPZ could be introduced.

The consultation put forward a planned design around 22 streets, not 1, not 3, but 22 - thats what we were all asked about.

Oh, an also, such a small CPZ has never been done before and the effects and risks are unknown - hmm

James - local councillors are publically accountable. I think it is perfectly reasonable, given the controversy over this issue and your deep involvment in the debate, that we ask how you intend to vote.

I won't remind you again about the numerous commitments you've made to honour the view of the people on this issue.

> I also asked you before Christmas who leaked the

> officers report to you and you've completely

> silent on that.

> When do you think you'll answer that question?

Ah, yes, the consultation report. Somebody from Southwark Council did show me the results 12 hours before it was published.

What do you think drove them to do that? Could be: They were proabably worried that you'd get hold of it first and spin it out of all recognition like you did on your blog and have tried to do on the EDF (noticed you've since taken that post down on your blog - good move).

I tell you what: tell your constituants how you're going to vote and I'll tell you how I came to see the report 12 hours early

It's pretty irrelevant who it was

[Penguin68]

I must share a concern that such a significantly clear view expressed in a consultation should still leave Mr Barber 'considering his options' - particularly when earlier he had been quite clear that he would represent the views of his constituents, once these were known, as they are now.

The concept of a one or two road CPZ is a lunacy - and can clearly only be seen as a wedge to force other street residents to ask to 'opt in' as well as a defence.

Mr Barber's considerable reluctance to come off the fence does suggest that he has an agenda which does not march with those of his consituents - were promises made to support the scheme which he now feels under an obligation to keep to? (and please note I am not, in any way, suggesting that those promises were made for any form of personal gain, but politicians do offer support of one colleague's scheme to gain support of another of their own, and of course politicians do make promises to support schemes to their own parties)

[first mate]

Penguin68, I am sure that James will not drag this out until the last minute because that would look too much like playing politics with what is, clearly, an extremely important issue to so many in the area. Or am I being horribly naive?

I still do not understand what piece of information is suddenly going to appear in late January that prompts Mr Barber to make his mind up. After all, he is on the transport scrutiny group, so is probably better informed on all fo this than many other councillors.

[buddug]

James wrote: "If it's clear they are for or against that will be what I try to ensure happens"

Well, James. You now know that approx 40 residents in the affected areas want a CPZ, 1,500 odd don't!!!! How clear is that! So why in heaven's name do you need to wait until the end of January to make up your mind?? You are too slippery for your own good.

And as to calling local businesses who responded to the consultation who voted against a CPZ 'commuters' and therefore to be discarded, well, go figure.

[Bobby P]

The consultation delivered a clear democratic majority against the proposal for a CPZ in the area we were all consulted on.

That should be the end of the matter. There should be no CPZ of any kind imposed.

No other position on this is tenable.

[tomsav]

I agree with Bobby P and the others re the CPZ - the public have clearly spoken and clearly said NO.

I voted for Cllr Barber last time - and if he votes in support of the CPZ this time, I will not vote for him again. In fact I will actively campaign against him.

[Bobby P]

Apparently (according to the other thread) a Southwark Council representative was on BBC Radio London today discussing the CPZ and defending their right to implement one based on the result of the Consultation - i.e. showing what we've basically known all along, that they intend to impose this in the face of all the public opposition.

[first mate]

would implore everyone to write to their local MP's and councillors demanding that the majority vote gainst CPZ as well as the democratic process is upheld. For CPZ to go ahead after all this would be an abuse of power.

It is vital that a large number of people against also attend the community council meetings on these dates- sorry for shouting but most will be so sorry if they realize that vloting with their feet could have stopped something that will affect all of us if pushed through.

put these in your diary

DO NOT RELY ON OTHERS TO GO ON YOUR BEHALF - do not rely on your local councillors to represent your views (especially if you're in East Dulwich Ward)

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

[Amelie]

As well as writing to MPs and Councillors the LB Southwark representatives who allegedly misrepresented the results of the consultation on BBC Radio London should be reported to the CEO of Southwark for gross misconduct. I would also suggest that people ask the Local Government Ombudsman to investigate how this consultation has been handled, and a letter to the Head of Legal Services pointing out that the consultation appears both to have been pre-judged and subsequently misrepresented, both of which are unlawful, would not go amiss either.

[James Barber]

Hi tomsav,

This all comes down to subsidiarity.

Who should have the most influence about changes to a street?

The people who live on it or people who don't live on it?

As I've always said I think residents who have to live with changes on their street should have the most but not all the influence.

22 streets of residents were asked if they wanted their street to be included in a controlled parking zone. A tiny few have a very clear majority of residents who want controlled parking on their street. Some more have said that if a neighbouring street were to have controlled parking they'd want it.

What do we say to residents on that street?

Do we say to them many people who never park on your street, who have little or nothing to do with you and your street have decided you can't have what you feel you need on your street.

for example I've had a number of local businesses say they need more local parking for visiting shoppers. They've asked for mroe 30mins parking only spaces alnog side roads. If we consult those side roads and lots of visitors say they want this parking should we ignore residents on those streets.

If people are really opposed to any controlled parking then please survey those streets. If you find honestly that they've changed their minds then great. I'd personally be hugely relieved.

[Penguin68]

If people are really opposed to any controlled parking then please survey those streets

Hey - you could run a consultation - using a survey perhaps, to see if people wanted CPZs. I can't imagine what the result would be.

And I'm really taken with the thought that ED might become the first place in the world with a one (small) street CPZ scheme, Cool, eh?

[BrandNewGuy]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> What do we say to residents on that street?

> Do we say to them many people who never park on

> your street, who have little or nothing to do with

> you and your street have decided you can't have

> what you feel you need on your street.

... that will almost certainly have a knock-on effect on others. Therefore they too are stakeholders in any decision to be made.

[henryb]

What about? - "The consultation suggested that the majority of people on the neighbouring streets don't mind you using spaces on their streets when there is no space left on yours. What a nice bunch."