Rockets

I don't think the council have a mandate to impose this - this is madness. Take a look at the numbers... 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. So because 18% of the total streets covered voted for a CPZ everyone gets impacted.....is this the new democracy?

James, A couple of comments: Question 1: size of the zone Can you break out for us which streets actually voted for or against in the Melbourne Grove zone as the documentation says: 14 streets were in favour of a parking zone, 12 were not in favour and 8 were undecided. I think that may be interesting in determining the size of the zone. Question 2: Hours of operation The all-day recommendation is overkill. If the council is trying to alleviate commuter parking but wants to protect Lordship lane then the hours of operation need to be two hours - I would even suggest that a one-hour slot between 9am and 10am would be the most sensible option if you want to protect parking spaces from commuters and the thriving local community. To be fair the more I look at it the recommendation seems to have more holes in it than Blair's Iraq WMD dossier....;-)

Errr not really RedPost....of the 2,244 people who responded to the consultation document who live within the boundary area 69% voted against it. The 54% figure you state is the council's cherry-picking of supportive responses to justify the implementation in a subset of the overall consultation area....they have cut the area to give them the justification they need.

A parking zone ?Melbourne Grove zone? to be implemented in the area bordered by and including Grove Vale, by the western boundary of the study area, by and excluding Lordship Lane and excluding a small group of side streets to Melbourne Grove in the south of the area (Lytcott Grove, Playfield Crescent and Colwell Road). There was majority support (54%) for a zone from respondents in this area Melbourne Grove zone to operate all day 8.30am to 6.30pm, Monday to Friday comprising different types of bays including permit and paid (visitors able to pay for up to 4 hours, ?2.75 per hour for petrol, ?3.25 per hour for diesel), short stay bays (see It's the whitewash many of us feared.....the fact that it is all day makes no sense as commuter parking would be impacted by a two-hour timing just as much all day. The council is showing this is nothing about the issue but all about money and that they care not on jot for Lordship Lane as a thriving business community....

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/eastdulwichparking/results/eastdulwichparkingconsultation-interimreportfinal.pdf It's inbound.....

Galileo, No that is not what I am arguing. Re-read the feedback from the meeting that 5imon posted and I am sure you will see that is but one consideration and part of the broader opposition to the proposals. Whether you agree with private schools or not that community does use the Belair car park to safely drop their children at school and their voice needs to be heard and the fear with this council is that they will turn their noses up at anyone who they don't approve of - and we all know the Labour party's views on private schools. I understand that the councillor who attended was quite dismissive when these points were raised, seemingly letting their own prejudices cloud the discussion. The displacement of parking from car parks like Belair to surrounding roads will not only create safety issues for the children being dropped off but also give the council more justification for CPZs in that area too. I watched with interest the council meeting on the YouTube channel in relation to the CPZ and it is clear we are going to get CPZs borough-wide. The shills of the Vale Residents Association turned up and regurgitated the same TFL and council stated propaganda and got a rip-roaring round of applause, whilst the shopkeepers and the 10,000 people who support them in their quest to not have a CPZ got a muted response from the elected representatives. When Cllr Livingstone got up and said how things had improved greatly in his area since the implementation of the CPZ I think we all know which way things are going to go.

Yes I believe the schools are Oakfield and Dulwich Prep early years and the issue there is that the catchment areas are huge so many people drive and aren?t able to walk as Galileo suggests. But as far as this council is concerned charging people who send their children to private school is to be encouraged! I love the fact that the council says they would entertain not charging for parking if people could suggest other revenue generating opportunities....they have to be careful as when we all see the wastage they are so famed for this approach may backfire....like the 42k on the Love Dulwich lampposts....

Tomskip.... Corbynista agenda.... 2.99% council tax rise 8.00% GLA rise Extension of double yellow lines to create parking pressure across the area to help justify stealth taxes... ?125 a year for a CPZ parking permit sold on false and misleading info ?30 a year to have your brown bins emptied Trying to sneak green space car park parking charges through without anyone noticing..... ....all under the umbrella of ?central govt cuts?. I get it that councils have lost funding (and I am not suggesting the Tories are any better) but at some point that narrative wears a bit thin as a catch-all excuse for their actions. We are seeing the first buds of the Marxist agenda now anyone other than the hard left has been forced out of the Labour Party, so if you own a car or have a garden expect your council to come after you and stealth tax you. They will say ?but our charges are the lowest across the capital? but this is just the start. As Stealers Wheel so aptly put it...Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right....

I suspect the council's thinking here is if you have a garden and need a brown bin you can probably afford to pay for it to be emptied....all part of their Corbynista agenda.....

The Friends of Belair Park have organised a meeting with Southwark Council to dispute the parking charges. If you want to make your voice heard the meeting will take place on Saturday 30th March 2019 at 2.30pm at Belair Recreation Rooms (Gallery Road). Friends of Belair are encouraging as many people as possible to attend.

You would expect a local councillor to be aware of such an initiative as it would impact his constituents....wouldn't you? The fact James B seems to be on top of this more than James M speaks volumes....a stealth tax so stealthy that even the local councillors seem unaware of it.... Additionally aren't you supposed to put food waste in the brown bin, will they refuse to collect it if it has garden waste in it?

Trust has to be earned and the Tooley St mob are doing nothing to earn it right now. Maximum 2.99% permissible council tax rise (along with the 8% GLA rise) plus their stealth taxes with the CPZ, park car park charges and now rumours of a brown bin tax as well.....when challenged they will moan on and on about cuts in central funding yet on a per household basis the rise in local taxes when all the stealth taxes are rolled up could well be huge.....over 50% year on year. It will be interesting to see how the electorate reacts come the next council elections. This is the type of thing that will mobilise people to actually vote and whilst I am convinced Southwark will always be red there might be some shocks for ward councillors who have stood back and let it happen.

They will create a subset of a subset of a subset to justify going ahead with the CPZ and to get them to the "outweigh" threshold they require - i.e. +1 in favour. They have already said they will discount the 8,000 signatures against the proposals collected by Lordship Lane traders and their website to garner responses is carefully designed to ensure they engineer a favourable result. Livingstone is moving the goalposts cos he knows the majority don't want it. As I have said before the Labour slogan has recently been changed to For the Few, Not the Many!!!

ED_moots - you are right this is very much like Brexit: - "locals" worried about parking immigration and "outsiders" taking their parking spaces - a campaign group (the council) pushing inaccurate and misleading information to help fool the electorate into voting for it - an electorate who could end up voting for something that they live to regret and can't undo which ultimately benefits no-one other than the people who dreamt up the idea..... sorry I couldn't resist ;-)

Southwark have already decided what they want to do - they decided it before the consultation process began and that was to have a CPZ across the whole of East Dulwich and surrounding areas to further tax car ownership. Everyone knows that no matter what anyone in East Dulwich says we are going to get a CPZ. Over 8,000 signatures have been collected by traders on Lordship Lane opposing the move but these will be discounted. The council's own research showed that East Dulwich was thriving and a lot of that came from people driving from postcodes beyond SE22 and SE5 but they are choosing to ignore this. Sanda - be careful what you wish for. Your negative experience of Corbyn in Islington will likely become the norm in East Dulwich - remember, the affluent are the enemy and Southwark have been circling East Dulwich for years and now have self-professed Marxist councillors "representing" our community. I think a lot of people have been taking a stand as they see this as the tip of the iceberg and have looked closely at the CPZ proposal and seen the only outcome is that people will pay ?125 a year for a scheme that will only provide a temporary rest-bite and that with the plans for double-yellows across drop kerbs there will actually be a net-loss of parking spaces on many streets. Throw in the council fast-tracking charging to park at the local parks and it is clear what the motive is here. And the council will default to the "cuts in central govt funding" narrative but that is what council tax increases are designed to help alleviate. Given the council is going to force a CPZ on the community I think the best solution would be a 9.00am to 10.00am controlled parking zone which alleviates the commuter and long-term parking issue but allows East Dulwich to continue to thrive. This would be a commonsense approach but we know that Southwark Council and commonsense are like oil and water....

Can I ask why the group representing these roads gives no indication on the preferred times of operation for the CPZ they so desire? Surely that should be a key element of the feedback to the council? If you were both convinced that commuters were the sole source of the problem and that you are keen to protect the local independent traders then maybe suggesting the hours of operation to be, say, between 9am and 10am would deal with the issue on your streets whilst trying to protect the local businesses? Or is the preference that parking spaces are reserved for the sole use of residents throughout the whole day? Ed_Pete I fear the residents voting for this will find that the yellow line impact will be huge. I did my own very unscientific research recently on many of the roads near the station quite late at night after returning from a football match in town and along Melbourne Grove I counted 6 free spaces not filled with cars which suggests residents were filling the remainder. Take away the spaces lost to the drop curbs and there would be a net loss of parking spaces. I do hope people aren?t convincing themselves to be the turkeys who voted for Christmas on the sole motivation that they will be able to park outside their house. The impact of the CPZ is far greater than a few roads near the station and those residents who live there and I think this is reflected in the 8,000 signatures the traders managed to get to oppose the CPZ in any form.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The only thing which is clear, is that the whole > of the surrounding area is destined to become a > CPZ. I agree. If you look at the plans to charge in the Dulwich and Belair car parks it is obvious people will park in the surrounding streets which currently have no CPZs which will act as further justification from the council to extend CPZs to the whole area. Especially considering Belair Park car park is used by parents taking their children to and from Oakfield and Dulwich Prep. It?s pretty transparent what the council?s plans are and no matter what any of the residents say they will vigorously pursue their plans to completion and engage in a folly consultation process. When are the next council elections...given the strength of feeling against the council right now perhaps we can mobilise and vote for a change ward by ward? Also, I think you?ll find most of the councillors don?t actually live in the area they are wreaking havoc upon and are part of Corbyn?s Marxist Momentum crew so probably care little for the ?posh folk? in East Dulwich.

Ah this probably explains why the council removed the recycling bins at Belair - putting revenue before the environment as they managed to free up 10 more soon to be paid-for parking spaces by removing it. This council is out of control - all parts of Labour have been infected by the dangerous hard-left and they are taxing car owners/middle classes aggressively - be that the CPZ, parking charges or the myriad of hair-brained ideas designed to make driving around the borough impossible based on the flawed logic that people will stop using cars. And they will bleat on about Tory austerity but that?s their go-to weak excuse/justification for everything. I did laugh a few years ago when I saw a huge billboard advert in Lambeth apologising to residents for having to reduce services due to central government cuts.......the irony of spending council money on such a thing in a time of austerity...... Thank goodness Chuka is trying to rally a more centrist option, one that isn?t either hard-left or hard-right because both sides of the political spectrum at the moment are pretty unpalatable - one with rabid anti-semitism the other rabid xenophobia.

Galileo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets > > Yes, of course I care about local businesses. I?m > one of their customers too. I particularly care > about the ones I know right by me, and they suffer > from the same problem: their customers can?t park. > > And are they supporting the CPZ? And what do they say to you when you say you are in favour? The traders are not worried for the sake of being worried and yes The Palmerston is closing for challenges unrelated to CPZs but this will fast become a trend and something we will have to become used to when the CPZ gets rolled out. People are resisting because they know once the council start they will not stop and can see their plans for what they really are.

Galileo, I am interested, you're obviously local to the Lane and I presume you use it - does it not slightly concern you that the CPZ may have a negative impact on its ability to thrive? I ran down Village Way today and the CPZ has certainly had an impact there - there was not a single car parked on either side of the road for the length of the road, great for the residents on that road but a bit of a white elephant as all the houses have driveways. But you have to ask, where have all those cars gone (and I presume they were commuters) - when it comes to commuting people do not change their habits they just adapt them? The only beneficiaries to that CPZ seem to be the people dropping off/picking up their kids at JAPS, JAGS or Alleyns.

The sooner everyone realises that the council only cares for two things: 1) ?125 a year from every car in the CPZ and 2) reduced car usage - the better. The council gives not one jot whether you can park outside your house - they don?t want you to have a car, they don?t care for the impact a CPZ will have on a local area or the local amenities that serve the community - all they care for is the cash this CPZ generates and they are doing everything they can to justify implementing it. And once they get their foot in the door it will be a disaster for the area as they will play the CPZ domino game. And remember they deliberately made the parking challenges worse in the CPZ area (and only within the CPZ area) with the extension of the double yellows so people would ?vote? for the CPZ. It?s blatant interference and manipulation. Talk to any of the traders on Lordship Lane (perhaps some of those in favour should do this) and the council isn?t listening to their concerns - they want and need the cash and they are doing everything in their power to get it and they will fudge and bluff their way to justify it. As someone said from a CPZ area nearby - be careful what you wish for.

James, Once again thank you for taking the time to respond. I appreciate that the council is a fan of CPZs but, in the same way Brexit was sold to people on the basis of untruths, the council?s materials are full of examples and facts and figures that are deliberately misleading. It tries to present itself as balanced but is anything but. And we have had members of this forum presenting the stats in the consultation documentation as validation of the good CPZs do. It seems to me that the majority of residents both in the affected area and beyond are against the CPZs but they also feel that the council will manipulate and distort the results to their advantage and will railroad the plans. Nothing about the consultation process, or the way it is being implemented, is reassuring them that this is anything but a done deal and that the council is doggedly pursuing an agenda of revenue generation ahead of needs of the local community. The one fact that does stand up to scrutiny is that parking in East Dulwich became a big issue when the council extended the double yellows a year or so ago within only the CPZ area which we were sold on the basis of ?safety? but most saw as a ploy to create parking pressure to help justify a CPZ. If the council pursues this campaign it will do irreparable harm to the Lordship Lane and East Dulwich community that you represent and the outpouring of resentment towards it on this forum and beyond should serve as a red flag to the council.

CPZs are like catnip to local councils and they will move heaven and earth to get them implemented. I am so glad people are challenging them over these ludicrous proposals and scrutinising what they will actually mean. Once you scratch beneath the surface you see what is really going on and that their intentions are not at all honourable and that very few people will actually benefit from these proposals (except them).

Perhaps one consideration for the council to help relieve the parking issues would be to return the double-yellows (that they only extended within the proposed CPZ area - read into that what you will) to how they used to be. There is a direct correlation between parking getting worse and the arrival of the "legal maximum" double-yellows and they were extended to deliberately remove parking spaces and to create justification for the CPZ. I agree with jimlad that a split area CPZ is merely the pre-cursor to a full-area CPZ and people should resist as much as they can (if they are so inclined). And for anyone who wants to have their say use this link as it is the ONLY input Southwark are willing to accept as part of the process: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/eastdulwichparking/

James, Firstly let me say thank you for engaging with us all on this subject - I very much appreciate you are caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. To address the prompted/unprompted discussion above my experience when door-stepped by a Labour representative a couple of years ago was that she asked if parking was a problem - I certainly didn't bring it up! I think many of the issues local people have about this whole process is the way the consultation is being handled - a lot of people are feeling the CPZ is being forced upon them. It is obvious the council has an agenda to roll-out CPZs across the borough and we all know this has nothing to do with the benefit of local people but revenue. Add to this the fact the council extended double-yellows (only within the proposed CPZ area) to remove a large number of parking spaces you can see why people are somewhat sceptical about the motives. Many people I have spoken to are resigned to the fact that the council will force a CPZ upon East Dulwich whether people want it or not. And when I look at the way the consultation process is being handled it merely validates the position of those who believe that the council is creating a scenario to validate their decision to roll it out. - The prospectus failed to reach many of those impacted - to be fair I think you get a free pass on this one as those of us who live in the area know how horrendous the Royal mail is at the moment in the area. - The prospectus is so biased towards a CPZ and full of erroneous stats that just don't stand-up to any scrutiny that it is laughable. It is blatant propaganda that should not be being shared as part of any "democratic" process. - You say the council is asking the questions widely but you are only mailing (or trying to mail) the roads directly covered by the CPZ - yet the impact stretches far more widely than that. Surely the views of people living one road the other side of the Barry Road boundary should be gathered too as they will likely be directly impacted by it. - Unless you receive the mailing you have no idea where to actually register you comments and it is very difficult to find on the Southwark website. When you get there you can register the street upon which you live and if you do not live on one of the streets impacted you have to put "Other" which makes people think that you will only consider comments from those people within the zone. - Thousands of people who use Lordship Lane have signed a petition yet these will not be considered. - The drop-in meeting was shambolic (some say deliberately so) and people were not allowed to register their opposition to the plans. And there are plenty more examples quoted within this thread that validate the perception that the council is creating a scenario to justify its decision to roll-out a CPZ. The sanguine amongst us on the thread understand the issues people have parking near their homes in parts of East Dulwich but are wise enough to realise a CPZ does not fix those problems - and certainly not in the way the council is currently planning. It might offer a temporary fix for the few but creates bigger issues for the many! (Sorry I couldn't resist ;-) )