peckhamboy

On 21 October, James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Calculus, > But one of the options is for the controlled > parking to only operate 10-12, which is the > minimum period thought enforceable and can be > enforced using the same people who enforce the > Herne Hill CPZ which operates 12-2. > > Hi Trizza, > I'm just back from a 3 day holiday with the > family. I didn't get one with them this summer due > to mothers illness. > > Hi Karter, > I was under the impression such zones boost house > prices but that wouldn't influence my reaction > when the consultation feedback is in. And no I > haven't a clue how people will react on the > streets the CPZ is proposed. > > And yes I do support this consultation and > residents being asked whether they agree with the > 40+ who have complained and asked for this. I am > proud to have ensured one of the options is that > residents are being asked about any controlled > zone operating 10-12. 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. My only caveat is that the > views of those on the actual streets will carry > more weight for me as they have to live with the > parking stress. Clearly those neighbouring should > be taken into account but the idea residents in > Nunhead or Forest Hill have an equal weighting is > bizarre. My emphasis, and the entire post included for context. So we can all rest easy, because (i) it is clear residents are against this (both inside and outside the proposed zone), (ii) the views of those on the actual streets (which carry so much weight with him) were nearly two thirds against and (iii) the views of neighbouring streets were even more against and will be taken into account. I am certain that James is a man of his word and have utmost faith in him.

James I'm afraid your blinkered stance on this is totally unsustainable. You are trying to impose a CPZ where it is not wanted, citing the "will of the people", when in fact you are basing your arguments on 27 votes. That is a narrow majority of respondents on two streets. It is not a majority of residents on those streets and it is certainly not a democratic basis for imposing a CPZ. Bringing in a tiny CPZ (even if you can spin the consultation enough to convince yourself that is what "the people" want) will do nothing but exacerbate or create problems in the rest of the area, and is unlikely to make life any easier for the people on those streets. You can no longer dismiss the views on here as just those of a few anonymous people, as your own consultation (despite the clear bias towards the answers you wanted) has overwhelmingly shown that there is no significant wish for controlled parking in the area. So, please, before you blight the area with the horrors of a CPZ, go back to the drawing board, do some open-minded investigation into what the real causes of any parking difficulties are and then try to address those rather than just bulldozing through a convenient cash cow that makes our lives a misery. And do it before you lose all of the respect and goodwill you have built up through the good stuff you have done for the community here.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But people on several streets want controlled > parking on their streets. A tiny number of streets > have also said they'd want controlled parking if > neighbouring streets have it. > > It would be easiest thing in the world to ignore > those minority of streets, would make perfect > political sense to go with the apparent majority, > and make my life easier but I want to know how > people on those streets that feel desperate enough > to ask in the majority for controlled parking will > be helped. I've not heard any realistic > alternative solutions proposed yet. And brow > beating them wont make their problems go away. James - two (not several - and in fact the same number as the "tiny minority" that indicated they would change their minds) streets voted in the majority (of respondents) for controlled parking. The majority (of residents) in those streets however either voted no or didn't even feel strongly enough to respond. Are you seriously saying that you think there is something democratic about imposing a CPZ because 27 people were in favour of it? Because that's what you are suggesting. And only two streets suggested they would change their mind if the street next to them got a CPZ - neither of those streets is next to a street that wants a CPZ so it is beyond disingenuous to even mention them in your justification for trying to press ahead with a CPZ. Their response was "no". Overall, the response rate was only 20%. Of that, the overall positive response was 35%. So approx 7% of the population of the proposed CPZ generally is in favour. Hardly a ringing endorsement. This is not the first time the council has tried to impose a CPZ, and not the first time it has been rejected. Please get the message and stop presuming that you know best and that we would all change our minds if only we understood. There are enough genuine problems for you to work on without needing you to invent new ones just because you like the 'solution'.

James From the TMO: The general effect of the order would be to introduce contra-flow traffic working for pedal cycles only in the following ?one-way? sections of streets:- (a) COPLESTON ROAD, between its junction with Oglander Road and its junction with Oxenford Street (currently one-way northbound for all vehicles); (b) OGLANDER ROAD, between its junction with Everthorpe Road and its junction with Copleston Road (currently one-way south-westbound for all vehicles). Please note, however, that the section of Copleston Road between its junction with Grove Vale and its junction with Oglander Road would continue to be subject to oneway northbound traffic working for all vehicles. These plans don't mention the 'shared use' pathway that was part of the consultation leaflet - that may just be an oversight but if not, it just seems to create a slightly pointless contraflow loop with no exit.

The plans don't include a cycle lane as such, as far as I can see. Just a bike logo and arrow painted on the road. Incidentally, James - the original plans included a shared use section of pavement at the Grove Vale junction but the document you attached doesn't mention that. It seems that bikes won't be permitted to cross the raised table section at the start of Copleston Rd though so do you know how they are intended to access Grove Vale?

I wouldn't mind seeing somewhere that does really good coffee. I know there's a few in the area already but it would be handy for those winter morning trips to the playground with the little one.

David A Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > What about a fish pedicure place? Last time I checked, fish didn't have feet so I doubt there's much of a market for that.

Bobby P Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That is indeed ridiculous. 16% in favour is a > "strong majority"? > > Pretty clear the Council's tactics (which are > being used again for the new CPZ proposed) are > dishonest. > > I hope we are less "inert" in our response, but I > fear the Council will ignore petitions etc. as > they clearly did in the N.Dulwich example. This is a point I raised previously - after the session at Grove Vale library, when I specifically asked about the response threshold required to push this through. The answer was that a 20% response rate is sufficient to constitute a valid consultation, and a simple majority of those who respond will suffice to approve the scheme. So, in short, if 10% of residents of the zone are in favour, that might be enough for the council to push ahead with the CPZ.

In the same way as the Gowlett is an ED pub. Perhaps David A has got his SE15 and SE22 mixed up?

Ms B, I'm not sure that's necessarily true or particularly helpful. I think I have seen one mention on the forum in connection with a mugging, but personally have had 5 years of walking up and down that road virtually every day without a single negative experience. Can we stick to facts please? It's a pleasant enough road, with moderately heavy traffic (due to the one way system), moderately heavy parking (due to the number of flats) and probably a bit of railway noise on the side that backs onto the line. It's in a nice area, and well located for both local stations, Sainsburys, Lordship Lane, Bellenden Rd and fairly close to Goose Green and Peckham Rye for some green space and kids playgrounds.

And of course, you can always go to the new Waitrose on Lordship Lane

James - happy to update the figures. Based on 5200 homes in ED Ward, if only 500 cars belong to residents of the CPZ, that leaves 3429 cars for 4041 homes outside the zone, or an 84.8% ownership rate. That is still more than twice the borough average and, dare I say it, very unlikely. The only conclusion I can reach is that the figure of 500 you were given and, no doubt in good faith, passed on, appears to massively under-represent the truth. In fact, it appears to be a thoroughly arbitrary figure plucked from thin air and guesswork to justify a CPZ when it would appear that the council was in fact in possession of information that could be used to produce a more accurate and reliable figure, albeit one that may not make a CPZ look particularly attractive. But in my view the council's job is to make the solutions fit the facts not to make the facts fit the solutions.

According to this there are 4697 dwellings in ED Ward. Simple maths shows that this means there are 3550 cars in ED ward so, for James' claims to be correct, that would mean the rest of ED Ward (outside the CPZ) has 3050 cars for 3520 dwellings, or an 86% car ownership rate - double the borough average. If that is true, I would suggest he is looking in the wrong part of the ward for parking problems. If it's not true, then I think residents of the proposed zone should be asking some pretty searching questions of their councillors.

Para 3.3.3 is also interesting. During the CPZ debate we were repeatedly fed lines about car ownership in the area, specifically related to the Southwark average of 40%. Yet the council's own figures in this document state that for East Dulwich Ward specifically, 46.4% own one car, 12.2% own two cars and 1.6% own 3 or more cars. That is significantly higher than the borough average and, based on 1159 residential properties in the proposed zone, equates to 873 cars fighting for 507 places. Or, in other words, at least 367 cars pushed onto streets outside the zone even if they have bought a permit. Those of you who have asked for a CPZ - do you think it would have been helpful to see these figures in the context of the consultation? Would your views have been different if you had seen them? James Barber - did you forget you had seen thse figures when you were claiming there were fewer than 500 cars owned by residents within the zone?

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BTW your logic regarding controlled parking zone > issues still doesn't stand up. > > CPZs are created in areas immediately adjacent to > accessible and effective public transport or > central London commercial areas - exactly the > areas that attract residents who cannot afford or > do not need or want a private car. Post of the week. That one really did make me laugh. I realise you are pushing an anti-car agenda (not a pro-community one) but let's not pretend that ED is a deprived area where people can't afford cars and hordes of affluent bankers from the outer suburbs are driving their Ferraris in to steal parking spaces and save a few quid on their train fares. If people in those streets could not afford cras, or did not need or want them, there would not be a parking issue. Even on the council's dubious stats, at least 80% of the cars belong to residents, accounting for around 100% of the "safe" parking spaces. And I don't think ED has boasted "accessible and effective" public transport for around 40 years or more. It has a functional but hardly world-beating service to a single Central London hub that generally works for around 5 days a week. Perhaps if the train service really were accessible and effective, people wouldn't want to use their cars so much. Maybe you should focus your efforts on improving public transport rather than trying to deny the alternative.

Sorry, to clarify, those figures were given by the council and related to areas covered by a CPZ. Hope that makes more sense now. And to further clarify, you are welcome to give your opinions. However, you have consistently sought to dismiss the opinions of those living metres outside the zone as being motivated by self-interest, which is true, or a hidden agenda, which is probably not. My point was two-fold. All opinions on this topic are motivated by self-interest, including those of the oppressed minority within the zone you are so valiantly protecting. So what is your interest? You are spending a great deal of time on this topic so I assume you have one, beyond a simple desire to interfere. Or are you acting purely in the role of amicus curiae? I assume that as a learned sort of fellow you are well aware of the disingenuity of your 'it's just maths' argument, which frankly is so plainly wrong it's worthy of the council themselves.

Quite. I can honestly say that I have never parked in the roads within the zone. I also have every sympathy with dairymilkfiend and others who have trouble parking and may need to struggle across main roads with their kids. As Carrie says, the vast majority of opponents from outside the zone are those who live on the very edge of it and are annoyed that the council did not consult them or even inform them of the consultation and concerned about the impact. To people like Huguenot, that means that the opposition is motivated by selfishness. It is of course no more and no less selfish than those who want a solution to the problem that involves dumping the problem on someone else, but it doesn't suit his argument to make that point. Then again, I'm still not sure what relevance the views of someone living on the other side of the world are to what is unarguably a (very) local issue. Personally, I am not against a CPZ in principle - it may be that it is the best solution available. However, there is no evidence that it will be any sort of solution at all. The "stats" (a generous description) suggest that any problem is largely restricted to Elsie Rd, Derwent Grove and Zenoria St. The council have not for example looked at the nuymber of cars owned by households in those streets to first ascertain whether making it resident only would actually provide the solution residents are looking for. What they have actually done is count some cars on 3 days, have a guess at how many might not belong to residents and then make sure that their proposed zone includes a few streets with plenty of space so that there are probably more or less enough spaces across the zone for most of the cars belonging to residents of the zone. Does that mean people in Elsie Rd will be able to park in Elsie Rd? Not necessarily. If car density is too high for that road, you will still be parking on a neighbouring road or outside the zone. The council have admitted that across the borough, there is an average of 40% car ownership, but a permit take-up of 11%. If that is true, that suggests 75% of people living in a CPZ who own a car don't buy a permit. Where do they park? On the first street outside the zone of course. So why don't the council think it appropriate to consult those streets? Because the consultation wouldn't give them the response they want (that's effectively what happened on the last consultation). So this way, they turn one "No" into potentially two "yes" votes. Because sure as hell, if the surrounding streets are swamped with refugees from the CPZ, there will be a consultation on extending the zone.

Sounds like a successful consultation then

Huguenot, in the interests of fairness, perhaps you could disclose which part of the zone or wider east dulwich area you live in, and how the proposed cpz will affect you?

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rolo Tomasi Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Worked in the Foresters too. 96 to 98. Lovely > > people back then, before the refurb. > > > > Then it all went to hell! > > xxxxxx > > The people may have been lovely, but you do have > to admit the pub was shit! > > Unless you like squelchy swirly carpets and the > smell of piss wafting from the toilets whilst > you're having a pint. Stop it Sue, you're making me all nostalgic for the good old days.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Those just outside the CPZ - the majority claim > ?125 is an outrageous fee (although they won't pay > it), and claim there is no congestion problem but > simultaneously say that the congrestion will get > passed to them (somewhat contradictory then). Actually, the main argument here is that there is some congestion across all streets. I live just outside the zone and we have a small amount of non-resident parking, but not enough to cause a problem. My concern about the effect of the CPZ is that it will create a problem where there is none at present, partly by concentrating all of the non-resident parking onto a very small number of streets just outside the zone (eg the Oglander 'wedge') and partly by pushing resident and visitor parking from the outer limits of the CPZ onto surrounding streets to avoid permit fees. In effect, this is congestion creation not congestion shifting. I also think the consultation document is misleading and shockingly absent of objectivity, that the consultation ought to take into account the immediate neighbours of the zone and that the council has been fairly cynical in timing its exhibitions right at the end of the consultation period, helping to limit the flow of information. Oh, and for good measure, the approval threshold based on a minimum consent of a mere 10% of directly affected (ie those inside the zone) residents seems somewhat on the low side for a project as divisive as this.

kr988 - it's not been offered as a trial. As you say, it's entirely up to you how you respond to the consultation but please don't think you can turn round in 6 months time and say "you know what, I'm still parking 10 minutes away, can you take the signs down now please". Maybe you should be campaigning for it to come in on a trial basis if that's what you want? Incidentally, I went along to the exhibition at the library this evening. It appears that the threshold for approval is a simple majority of those who respond from within the zone, with a minimum response rate of 20%. That means the council are prepared to bring this in (permanently) with a mandate of just 10% of residents within the zone - meaning that it is crucial for anyone who lives in the zone and has views (either way) must fill in the consultation form as your views will make a difference. Or in other words, 115 people voting either yes or no could be sufficient to decide this. They also said that if particular roads strongly objected, they could be excluded even if the zone went ahead elsewhere so please don't think it's a done deal and do respond.

easytiger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does anybody know about the unofficial meeting > tonight in Grove Vale? > > ETA. Thanks Admin for making this a sticky much > appreciated. Do you mean the council exhibition thing? It's at Grove Vale library, until 8pm. I'm planning to pop along.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just for perspective, I know of a global bank > moving outside zone 1 in London > > Roughly 80% of the workforce appear to view this > as a reason to leave > > Several people on 3 figure salaries expect someone > else to pick up the extra tube costs or else they > will leave for that reason alone > > I know who I have more sympathy with To be fair, if I was on a 3 figure salary, I think I'd struggle to pay for travel myself. Or rent, food, clothing...

sairah pillai - that's all very well but I don't recall seeing that as an option on the consultation so realistically how do you think "enough residents" will request it? If this comes in, it's here to stay.