Rockets

James, I notice there is a lot of pavement replacement work going on across your ward and we all seem to be getting brand new paving slabs and kerbs to replace the existing pavement and kerbs. As nice as the new pavements look, how much are yuo spending on them and were these works essential?

James, Your response: The CPZ consultation unapologetically prioritises the views of those living on a given street. No one lives in the parks so there is no relevant comparison here.....is ever so slightly condescending and deliberately misses the point....the park car parking consultation allows the community to cast their vote based on their determination of the impact on the local community as whole...the CPZ consultation had no such mechanism to do that and despite that 25% of respondents said, completely unprompted, that they had concerns about the impact on Lordship lane. And you continue to conveniently ignore answering any questions about your thoughts on the impact on the CPZ on the streets that do not have it. And per rjsmall I think it is time to stop playing the austerity card - it's wearing a bit thin - we all know the cycle of govt spending - Labour spends, Tories then have to cut, then Labour comes in and has to spend again and so it goes on and on. But it doesn't get away from the fact that Lambeth appear to be spending about 50% less on roads than Southwark. The Southwark report to which I refer isn't gross spending and doesn't include any money from TFL, it is a section of the report that shows how the multi-million pound surplus made by Southwark from parking charges, permits and PCNs is invested. You'll find it under the section: How the surplus from parking income has been spent? on Page 38 of the Southwark Transport Plan Annual Monitoring Report 2017/18.

I don't know if anyone else had the "Your Services are Changing" leaflet that dropped through the door this morning detailing the new collection process but it is telling that on the opening page as part of the Why Is it Changing section is opens with.... "Most people in the borough do not have gardens...By asking for a small contribution from those who want to continue having their garden waste collected we can protect the essential services we deliver across the borough....." It is so obviously a tax on those the council think can afford it but more worryingly this sets a very dangerous precedent as one wonders whether it then allows people who don't use those all of the essential services to claim they shouldn't be paying for them.

Bottom line is if you are lucky enough to have a garden or a car then this council sees you as a taxable revenue centre....challenge them on it and they remind you it goes to good causes for those less fortunate than you....I think we are supposed to just grin and bear it....roll on the next local council elections....

Interesting as well that you have to order (free) a new smaller brown bin for your food waste as you will not be able to put it in the big brown bins anymore. Does this mean anyone who doesn't pay for the brown bin collection will get a new smaller food bin? Also the collections of the large brown bin are going to be weekly so do as we are and share the cost between a few neighbours if you want to fight back a bit!!!

James, Thank you for replying. To address some of the points you raised: "I emphasised that the consultation asked people if they wanted a CPZ on their road because there is some misinformation being circulated to say that 68% of people in East Dulwich do not want a CPZ in East Dulwich." Firstly, I was interested to read the park car park consultation online response mechanism that allowed the respondent to "oppose the plans in their entirety". Interesting that such a response was not given for the CPZ consultation - why was that? Why are you pushing the narrative that there is misinformation circulating when your own colleague Charlie Smith says in the SE22 magazine that "the overall response said that 69% of people were against it"?. "- The Chair took the 3rd option, which I think was the best one available to us. This had nothing to do with any requirement for the Council to have the meeting before a decision is taken - the council?s constitution has no such requirement so a decision could have been taken on the CPZ even if the meeting was cancelled (I would not have supported this option)." This might have benefited the council but it didn't benefit the members of the community, from both sides, who showed up to have their say and were denied that opportunity. "- There are plenty of people who want a CPZ in their area (predominantly in the area where I argue there should be one). They are not stooges of the council or under-cover council officers. They are expressing genuine concerns which the council is trying to address." No-one has suggested they are stooges for the council but the point many of us are raising and you, and those in favour of the CPZ, repeatedly fail to address or acknowledge is the negative impact this implementation will have on the broader community. We would all love to be able to park directly outside our houses but many are sanguine enough to realise that to do so close to Lordship Lane could well kill Lordship Lane as we know it. Why do you only ever pay lip service to these concerns - is it that you really don't care what happens to the thriving Lane community? "- It is illegal for the council to introduce a CPZ to raise revenue." As you keep stating but the facts speak for themselves - the council makes a huge amount of revenue from parking (?6m profit annually and counting) so you're hardly being dis-incentivised from rolling them out are you? And you didn't answer my question on what the council is re-investing that money in - just what did the council spend ?5.8m on road maintenance on last year and why has that increased from ?1.7m in 2011/12? And just for the benefit of reference from what I can tell Lambeth spent about ?2m on road maintenance in 2017/2018. - Any revenue that the council does raise goes straight back into public services anyway, it?s not as if it?s syphoned into the bank account of billionaires in the Cayman Islands. You are a bit obsessed with billionaires in the Cayman Islands...;-) I don't think anyone has suggested that is where the money ends-up and your repeated use of that phrase suggests you believe that because the money goes back into public services we should just all just smile, get on with it and pay it. I know the council thinks that those lucky enough to live around Lordship lane must be rolling in cash but we can all see the trends emerging here (CPZs, brown bin tax, green space car park charges). - You may disagree with the conclusions I have reached but I cannot see what evidence you have that I am not acting with the best interests of the community at heart. I really don't think you are acting in the best interests of the community at large. My personal feeling is that you are using the small number of roads around the station to impose a party-political agenda to see CPZs in East Dulwich, knowing full well that those roads will force parking issues into other areas and thus greasing the wheels to get more CPZs across the area. Given the spanking the two main political parties got in the recent local elections one would hope that local councillors would be mindful of keeping the majority of their electorate happy and you must be thanking your lucky stars the elections did not take in place London. It has been clear from the outset that the council manipulated the situation to create parking pressure (extension of double-yellow lines in only the CPZ consultation area before the consultation started), manipulated the consultation process to guarantee delivery of a CPZ and ultimately care not one jot for the vibrancy of Lordship lane or the views of the majority who live there. It will be interesting to see how the electorate reacts at the next local elections.

Does anyone know why this got lounged?

James, The meeting was beyond shambolic and it should have been postponed and rescheduled to a date when the council could provide an adequately sized venue that was suitable for task. When the news was first broken to us that the room was full someone immediately suggested that the meeting should be rescheduled. We were told that we could only watch the meeting on the webstream and so a large number of those waiting to get in left. Those who stayed were then unceremoniously pushed onto the pavement outside the library whilst the council decided what to do. More people left. It was clear that whilst the council was happy to postpone the non-CPZ elements of the agenda there was a huge reluctance on their part to do the same with the CPZ discussion (even though the councillor for Dulwich West came out and said she agreed it should be postponed and would make the recommendation to the chair - did she and was this minuted?). This led many to believe that without that meeting having been completed the council could not implement the CPZ so it pushed forward with the meeting as a box ticking exercise. The community was not afforded the opportunity to address the council enmasse and many, myself included, were unable to attend the meeting and hear from the council or be heard on a matter of huge importance to the area due to the council's own failings. That is not how these things are supposed to work and demonstrates, yet again, the contempt with which this council views its residents and the councillors their constituents. Now, to your second note: Your comment on 75% of residents living under the outcome they want - firstly, I would temper your use of stats before someone accuses you of being sinister or likening you to the mouthpiece of a terrorist organisation ;-) -secondly, the CPZ will impact 100% of your constituents and the people in the local area. The majority of residents do not want a CPZ yet are going to be forced to live with the affects of one. You may have cleverly worded your questionnaire to focus on a single roads but we all know the impact of a CPZ goes beyond a single road. One, ahem, wonders why you didn't pose the question in the consultation about whether residents would like a CPZ in the area at all or whether any had any concerns about the impact on the community..... Unfortunately, through every step of this process the council has shown its true colours and has steamrolled something on the community that the majority do not want. The motivation is not the good of the community but to swell the ?15m annual revenue and ?6m surplus the council makes from parking permits, pay and display and PCNs and your constituents are the victims of this. And that surplus goes on road maintenance but just what did the council spend ?5.8m on road maintenance on last year and why has that increased from ?1.7m in 2011/12? I see the thread on this topic has been mysteriously lounged so for any of you that want to read the stats the report is here (page 38 deals with budget) https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/8423/Southwark%20Transport%20Plan%20Annual%20Monitoring%20Report%202017-18.pdf

And Penguin68 to that point the report is very revealing as well.... From the ?6m surplus made last year ?5.8m of that was spent on road maintenance. And since 2011/2012 road maintenance costs have risen from ?1.7m in 2011/2012 to last year's ?5.8m figure.

And then you consider the real motivation for the council doing this and that's when people take action...... The great find by MarkT posted on another thread sheds light on what the council made from parking, parking permits and the policing of parking last year - a ?6m surplus. And each year the revenue has been increasing - no doubt based on more CPZs, associated pay and display and increased policing by traffic wardens: Parking permits made them ?3.6m last year Pay and display another ?3.7m Penalty Charge Notices a whopping ?6.2m CPZs are council cat-nip, not for our benefit but theirs and ostensibly a stealth tax on car owners... https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/8423/Southwark%20Transport%20Plan%20Annual%20Monitoring%20Report%202017-18.pdf

The link to the report is here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/8423/Southwark%20Transport%20Plan%20Annual%20Monitoring%20Report%202017-18.pdf It's a great find as it shows how the council uses parking permits, pay and display as a significant source of revenue: Parking permits made them ?3.6m last year Pay and display another ?3.7m Penalty Charge Notices a whopping ?6.2m No wonder they love CPZs and the meters and charges that go with them. As you point out in total they made a ?6.1m surplus last year from parking charges of which ?5.8m was spent on road maintenance. I would love to know what is included in road maintenance as that has risen from ?1.7m in 2011/2012 to the ?5.8m figure - yet there are no more roads than in 2011!!! ;-)

And therein lies the beauty of the council's very cleverly worded and designed questionnaire....very much designed to give it the mandate it wanted to deploy CPZs. One wonders why, given the furore around the proposals in the run-up to the consultation, why they didn't ask whether people wanted a CPZ in East Dulwich and whether people were worried about the impact it might have on the local area......hmmmmm....I wonder.... The reality is that a small number of streets around the station will now get their desire for a CPZ whilst everyone in the rest of the area lives with the fallout.

and to Rooster Booster here is a post from this very forum from someone who lived in Brixton on the realities of a CPZ that was posted back in January.....you can expect a similar situation to befall East Dulwich upon implementation of the CPZ..... "I am 100% against this. I used to live in Brixton/Herne Hill when they introduced CPZ there. I was a 10min walk away from the tube. The CPZ around the tube, bumped cars onto neighbouring streets until the whole area was covered in CPZ. I now hate going to Brixton because I'm always watching the meter, looking out for traffic wardens who patrol the streets on mopeds hoping to catch people out. I now only go to Brixton if it's essential even though I have family who still live there. I can't pop in for a cup of tea to see my mother in law as that will cost me ?3 per hour. I've been given parking tickets because I completed a visitors permit in pencil (not pen) so that cost ?120 over 2 days. Does anyone in their right mind want to invite this into their lives??? This will not benefit our community. It will alienate visitors I for one will be very sad if a CPZ is introduced to the ED."

Lowlander - we are going round and round in circles on this one. May I suggest you do this: - Head down to Lordship Lane and Re-read the poster - as I pointed out in my post it doesn't mention "vote" it says "oppose" - read/Re-read the council's CPZ Recommendations document - the link to which is posted earlier in the thread from where the stat comes - read/Re-read my (and other's) previous posts as it clearly lays out why the creator of the poster is perfectly entitled to use the stat they do and why it is based on fact and is not at all fake - Contact EDIBA (as I suggested some posts ago) if you want to determine who created the poster - it's clear no-one here knows and they will have a much better idea than any of us....although I am not sure why you are so obsessed with who is behind it. Why cant you satisfy yourself that whomever is behind this poster (and the one that shopkeepers displayed previously) is someone who is interested in protecting Lordship Lane from a CPZ? Just as the Vale Residents Association want to promote why they think there should be a CPZ (no one has been demanding their contact details). A lot of people have taken time to try to answer your questions but you appear not be listening.

Does anyone know what the point of this thread is? I am struggling to work out what it is trying to achieve. Do people want the posters removed on the basis that the stat doesn?t take into account the turn-out? That makes no sense. The stat quoted comes from the council so whomever designed the poster is perfectly entitled to use it. And Lowlander says the poster says 68% of people voted against it, it doesn?t it actually says 68% oppose the CPZ which, based on the council?s own results document is perfectly factual. And let?s remind ourselves that the process saw the council send information booklets to each house or premise in the proposed CPZ with instructions on how to partake in the process to register their vote on whether they wanted a CPZ on their road. And upon logging on to the site each respondent was to indicate which road they live in within the CPZ area and if they did not they had to identify themselves as ?other? which I am sure became the visitor category. So how can the 68% not be reflective of the views of the area....what on the basis that not everyone voted? Really? That?s nonsense. If you want another stat from the council?s own report that show the weight of opposition to the CPZ read the below: Street-by-street analysis shows that within the whole study area 15 streets supported a parking zone while 54 streets were against. 10 streets were undecided and there was no response from two streets. Figure 2 below shows, based on responses, majority support in green, majority against in red, and undecided in blue. That seems pretty conclusive. Fine, maybe you want to claim that not every residence in East Dulwich was part of the process but I am pretty sure that if more properties were polled (on the other side of Barry road for example) then those opposing it would be a greater percentage as the further you get from the VRA zone around the station so support for the CPZ wanes massively. So can someone who is pushing this agenda please explain what the issue with the posters really is, is it maybe that the pro-CPZ protagonists don?t want people to think the majority don?t want it or are keen to drive the narrative away from the annoyance of many with the way the council has handled this, especially those in Peckham West who have been treated even worse than those in East Dulwich.

And in case you are unable to open the link posted earlier...pasted below are the results of the consultation as presented by the council. As to who the person responsible is maybe speak to EDIBA but you can see the posters have a pretty solid factual grounding. Just out of interest, now you have had time to digest the report and read the numerous threads on the subject has this swayed your views on the CPZ one way or the other? And do you perhaps think now that calling the posters sinister and comparing them to Iraqi pro-regime may have been slightly OTT? Overall results ? A total of 7,180 consultation packs were sent out to 81 streets within the consultation area and the consultation was extended due to mail delivery issues to a period of eight weeks. We received 2,244 responses from residents and businesses/organisations within the consultation boundary which represents a very high response rate of 37%, a record for the council. More than one response per address was accepted but duplicates removed where the same name was used. 418 responses were received from visitors to the area taking the total of responses to 2,662. The largest proportion of responses (80%) were from residents followed by visitors (16%) businesses (98 responses, or 4%) and organisations (<1%). ? The overall response showed the majority of those who responded (69%) were against a parking zone, 25% wanting a zone and 6% were undecided. Results were very similar when excluding visitors to the area (68%, 25% and 7%). Visitors to the area included those visiting or caring for residents, those visiting or working at businesses or institutions such as schools, as well as those living just outside the zone. ? The vast majority (91%) of the 98 businesses that responded were against the zone which reflects the sentiment expressed in two business meetings in which traders voiced concerns about impact on footfall, the cost of business permits and workers not being able to park. Traders also raised the concern that if only a 2 section of the study area was to be implemented, that this would cause parking displacement on surrounding roads and the zone would eventually be expanded. The independent businesses raised awareness about the proposed zone through posters in shop windows ?Save our high street? and collected signatures against the zone: A petition of around 8,000 signatures was sent by the East Dulwich Independent Business Association (EDIBA) for presentation at Council Assembly 27 March 2019. EDIBA expressed a willingness for further discussion and to collaborate on delivery of mutual objectives requesting a dynamic and bespoke strategy. In addition, an estimated quarter of all responses to the consultation cited concerns about the impact parking restrictions may have on the high street. Figure 1. EDIBA poster displayed in shop windows ? Street-by-street analysis shows that within the whole study area 15 streets supported a parking zone while 54 streets were against. 10 streets were undecided and there was no response from two streets. Figure 2 below shows, based on responses, majority support in green, majority against in red, and undecided in blue.

Lowlander....how are they not truthful....they are the council?s own stats from the responses to the consultation document? Now you could get pedantic and suggest that ED?s boundaries are wider than the CPZ area...is that your point? I think a lot of residents and shopkeepers would encourage the council to be fair and truthful in regard to the methodology and motivations for implementing the CPZ....

Lowlander....I am afraid you are missing something......67/68% of the people who responded to the CPZ consultation said they did not want a CPZ. If you are a shopkeeper who relies on footfall to sustain your business then the CPZ will bring misery and chaos....and probably put you out of business.

Wandered down to the meeting today at the library and to say it was shambolic was an understatement. The council had massively under estimated the number of people who would want to attend and hear from them and ask questions. When I arrived the line snaked down the stairs from the meeting room, into the library and out towards the street. We were told that the room, which held 100 people was at capacity and that we could follow the meeting on the stream. Someone suggested that perhaps the meeting should be postponed and the council find a more suitable location for it given so many people wanted to voice their views. There was much umming and ahhring and a lot of people left. After some time the council officials returned and suggested that they were postponing the non CPZ element of the meeting and they would run two concurrent meetings to accommodate the excessive numbers and present their CPZ findings and take questions. The majority of people suggested that the common sense approach was to postpone the meeting as they wanted to hear from all of the community that had attended, not have it split in two. At this point someone from the library told everyone not in the meeting room to leave the library as it was a health and safety issue. So everyone decamped to the pavement outside the library. Everyone outside was told that there would be a separate meeting that would start about an hour later after the first CPZ meeting concluded. People pointed out that many had already left as they had been turned away and that postponing the meeting was the best course of action. A councillor from West Dulwich came out and said that even though she agreed that the meeting should be postponed that it likely couldn?t be. She said she would recommend it to the chairman of the meeting. The feeling of the majority of those stuck outside the meeting was that the council were, once again, treating the electorate with contempt. Like many of those who attended for a 2.30pm start I could not stay for the 2nd meeting so I would be interested to know if any decision was taken on rescheduling the meeting or whether anyone has any info from either two of the meetings. The feeling was that if the council could postpone the non CPZ discussion element of the meeting then they should have done it for the CPZ discussion. But, as someone quite rightly pointed out, the council probably has to have a ?public meeting? as part of the process of implementing the CPZ so could not postpone it without impacting the start date for the CPZ. The whole CPZ process has been flawed from the beginning and today again gives weight to those who think that the council doesn?t care about the views of the residents of East Dulwich. Today was another sad day, another nail in the coffin for the democratic process.

James, Many thanks for your responses....I will take the slight typo in your response as a grammatical error rather than the mother of all Freudian slips!! ;-) And I quote.... You are absolutely correct that the overwhelming majority of people in East Dulwich, and in my ward, do not want a CPZ. I will ensure, therefore, that the overwhelming majority of people in East Dulwich and in my ward do live in one. But your response highlights the issue so many people have with the process and "result". Whether any particular street is in the CPZ or not, all the residents in your ward will be impacted by the CPZ. Those people who voted against it will have their streets blighted by the impact from the small number of streets that voted for it. There will be displacement and more parking pressure on those streets without the CPZ. So, the council's decision will impact everyone in East Dulwich and that's why many of us want our elected representatives to do more and represent the views of the majority and take a stand against it. The concerns on the impact to Lordship Lane are real and being deliberately overlooked by the council. I know you are suggesting to reduce the number of roads having a CPZ but, to be fair, that's like asking someone if they want to be punched in the face by both fists or just one.....and the oldest political trick in the book ;-) I think it is imperative that the council realises the detailed results of the consultation to everyone so we can all see what the true picture is. There is still an underlying concern that the council has railroaded these plans through against the will of the majority of people who will be impacted. And that the council has done everything in its power to get the result it wanted - I have yet to hear a response from the council on why the double-yellow lines were extended to the full legal limit months before the CPZ consultation was initiated. To most of us it just looks like an attempt to create parking pressure to help get people to vote for a CPZ. 8,000 people signed a petition in an attempt to save Lordship Lane and that has been given but lip service by the council. Add to those 8,000 the 68% who voted against the CPZ and there are a lot of disgruntled voters out there who feel local councillors are putting party politics ahead of the needs of their constituents. One can only presume you feel secure with your majority or you have been promised a plum job should you lose your seat in the next council elections........ BTW will you and the other councillors for the area be at the public meeting on the 27th?

Rollflick and Chuckd - don't you see - the council has been, and continues to play, the CPZ jigsaw game? They put one piece in place here and they know that soon they will have to put another piece in there and before you know it everyone has a CPZ and then they'll start charging more and more for the permits and the meters and then everyone will realise what a folly it is and benefits no-one other than the council and their revenue generation plans. That's why so many of us are opposing it with all our might; putting the needs of the many and the vibrancy of our area ahead of the needs and wants of the few.

James, Thank you for your response. The over-whelming majority of residents in East Dulwich, and particularly your ward, do not want the CPZ - that is abundantly clear - as they are worried about the impact it will have on the area as a whole. One stat that stood out was that 25% of all respondents raised concerns about the impact on Lordship Lane. These responses were unprompted, as there was not a question asking this, and that is huge. The concerns are real and are being overlooked by you and the council. We all knew the council would force a CPZ through and create a process to "justify" implementation. As Kissinger famously said to a group of media: "Has anyone got any questions for my answers", the council has created a process and consultation document to railroad a CPZ through, knowing full well that if they get a CPZ in one area this will create challenges in neighbouring areas and will help them justify future CPZ expansion. The council carefully created a consultation document that deliberately did not ask whether people wanted it in the area - just their street. We all know if the question about a CPZ in the area had been asked the council would not be able to implement it - that's why it was not asked. But I am not so sure it is a clear cut as I actually think the wording of the consultation may create issues for the council and further analysis of the results will be required. For example, could you to address these questions: - how was the undecided category determined - does that mean votes were equally split between for and against? - how will the council manage the split results through Melbourne Grove as it is clear one half wants it - the other doesn't and any impact on those roads who voted against it? (I know you are trying to address this) - why have you not seen the data - you are the elected official for the area and I would have thought it was vital you have the data to hand before you sent your note about your suggestions for tweaks to the plan? - which two streets did not respond and do we know why they didn't respond? - What have you done to champion the views of the traders represented in your ward? The sense of frustration people feel is that we would have hoped that someone from the elected representatives in the ward would have taken a more pragmatic approach and say - we cannot impose a CPZ on the area - there is, bar a small cluster of streets within the VRA area, overwhelming sentiment that this is not what the area wants. The impact of any CPZ will be felt across the breadth of your ward and that is why people have campaigned so hard against it - they know that any CPZ in the area will be damaging. From day one it has been clear you have supported the CPZ and have done little to champion the true feelings of the ward you represent. The traders have been consistent in their message that all of the local councillors have not shown any interest in their concerns and it was shocking watching the video of the council meeting how the VRA were given an enthusiastic round of applause by the councillors and yet the independent traders were not given such a rousing reception. It was clear to all from the body language in that room that we were heading for a CPZ in the area and the VRA were the shills to help it happen. It is good to see you trying to get the size of the CPZ reduced but, to be honest, it feels like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. I think a lot of us just wish you had been more active from day one, had put party politics aside and had better represented the views your constituents.

Repost, ha ha...nothing like a debate on private schools to bring out the prejudice in people...;-)

James, The challenge you face is that this whole process has highlighted why so many people have lost faith in politics and politicians. It was obvious to everyone what the result was going to be, and that was the result the council wanted a CPZ to raise revenue and skewed the process to ensure it happened. When the majority in the consultation area voted against it the council reduced the size of the area to create a "majority" and even then a large number of the roads impacted voted against but get it anyway - that is not democracy. You represent a ward that overwhelmingly voted against the CPZ yet you pull the party line putting party politics ahead of the desires of the majority of your constituents. This is why people are sick of politics. You represent a ward where traders are massively concerned about the impact of the CPZ on their livelihoods yet you, and your party, have neglected them allowing them to become collateral damage. The more we all look at the results the more we realise what a whitewash this has been. At some point I hope an elected official will actually stand up for the views and desires of the majority of their constituents - I would vote for them and I am sure lots of others would. 69% of the respondents in the consultation area voted against it yet the area still gets a CPZ that will impact all. How is that democratic?

Cllr Mcash - do you have any thoughts on the hours of operation of parking that I suggested? Surely implementing a 9.30am - 10.30am CPZ in those roads would both protect those roads from commuter parking but also protect Lordship Lane as a vibrant local community? I am afraid this consultation has been everything the majority of local residents feared it would be.....an absolute whitewash. The consultation process, the public meetings and the recommendation report are the outputs of a council that is manipulating the results to give it the decision it wants. Just 18% of all roads polled voted for a CPZ.....yet everyone will feel the impact. If this is modern democracy in action then we are all in trouble....