gsirett

I took a number of things away from tonight: 1. I really do empathise with the people sat behind me from Derwent Grove. I understand that parking is a huge issue for them. If, for any moment, I thought any of the CPZ options proposed would sort their problems out I would have thought twice about saying my piece tonight. For me, Helen Hayes (one of the councillors) was the best speaker of the night. She summed it up perfectly ?We cant?t keep everybody happy on this issue.... we know you?ve got problems, but a CPZ is going to cause more/ problems for more people elsewhere.? 2. Southwark?s engagement with its people on this subject has been AWFUL. The ?magic out of the air? 1/3/7 Road options ? hmmmm . Tonight?s meeting can be put down as a victory for democracy but, really, should it have to come down to a 19th century husting to gauge public opinion? Surely they can manage something a bit more scientific. I?ve heard that people can do these things by telephone now we?re in the 20th century. IMO, if the agenda hadn?t been firmly set from the beginning (lets do everything we can to shoehorn a CPZ in) then they may well have considered some form of better engagement 3. The chairman, Clr Robinson, did an excellent job in difficult circumstances 4. Lets save the best until last, the holy trilogy: Councillor James Barber Councillor Rosie Shimmel Councillor Jonathan Mitchell The 3 Lib Dem, block-voting, amigos Shame on all 3 of you. You are an absolute disgrace. You are a disgrace to the people who voted for you. You are a disgrace to the party that calls itself ?Liberal? and ?Democrat?. You showed neither of those traits tonight. As predicted the 3 Lib-Dem councillors decided what is right for their constituents without LISTENING to their constututants. James Barber: I?ve learnt to expect him to do anything he can to get a CPZ in, but to sit in front of a council meeting (consultation report in hand) and claim ?it?s 50/50?. Sorry, but that?s enough James, you made yourself look VERY silly. But the other two? ? James? little lap dogs: Cllr Mitchell seemed to be saying that he was being weally weally bwave (ignoring his voters) and that he knew better than those dammed plebs form East Dulwich. Ms Shimmel seemed to stick her hand up to anything (as long as it didn?t counter their dear leader, St James) I have said (on numerous occasions now) I respect the hard work of councillors. They volunteer, and are a key part of local democracy. I certainly wouldn?t fancy 10 emails about dog poo on a Monday morning. But these 3 people have blatantly tried to stamp on local democracy. They have gerrymandered. They have put their national party politics over their voters wishes. For that, they should be ashamed of themselves. There is no excuse for their behaviour and I will not apologise for that opinion James Barber has lost any respect that I once had of him. I know many have come out in his defence ?hard working?, ?he engages? but IMO this man is on HIS own agenda only . People will call names for this post. I don?t care. These people do not deserve public office. Deep down, they REALLY seek to mould the world into their own vision.They are a disgrace. I am not strongly party-political: but I have seen 3 the Lib-Dem politicians tonight block-vote and act in blatant disregard of THEIR voters wishes. I, for one, will not be voting lib-dem again. Shame on all 3 of them.

James, to use your analogy : you have asked Scotland to vote ( the rest of us live in England) Scotland said "no", so now you want to use the results from Glasgow only to justify independence Good point about the thread

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm exasperated by DJKillaQueen's inability to > accept that a no vote has been definitively > expressed by no more than 15% of residents. > > > + Gooooaaaaalllllll !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But it's about twice the number who were in favour......democracy

" Any claim about local business supporting the anti-CPZ campaign is both true AND absolutely worthless/meaningless. I remember about 10 years ago most of the same traders were against bus lanes. Claims of Lordship Lane apocalypse were rife. The bus lanes happened. The businesses prospered." Actually the local traders "whinged" about a permanant LL bus/red route. Nobody listened to them, what harm could it possibly do? A while later, with evidence of dramatically falling sales, a local councillor helped them get the decision reversed ( a local lib EVerybody thought they were just a load of whinging businesses, But their fears were proved right. Many of th businesses that we all love run on very tight margins. Nobody has problems parking at sainsburys or bluewater

milk76 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So Gsirett you are in favour of a trail CPZ as > long as you have absolute reassurance that it will > be removed if it fails. That is excellent > EXCELLENT news. > > The proposals as i understand it are five; > > 1. No CPZ > 2. No CPZ, but make minor changes to roads,lines, > removing unused bays, etc to make everybodys life > easier > 3. Experimental one hour CPZ in Derwent Grove only > (62% of residents in favour) > 4. Experimental one hour CPZ in Derwent, Elsie, > Jarvis, Melbourn, Oxonian,Tintagel, Zenoria (54% > of residents in favour) > 5. Experimental one hour CPZ in Derwent, Elsie, > Tintagel (57% of residents in favour) > > So options three four and five would all be > acceptable on a strict trial basis and have the > backing of the majority of residents living on > those streets (see numbers in brackets). No I would not. Absolutely. Categorically. Why? Because you're just trying to work your minority view in, knowing full well that any assurances given will be worthless from southwark. There was a point where ( for the consulted on scheme) I would have accepted a trial. But not now: I know you'll be bleating about having to walk 100m when all the other roads are suffering NOBODY has been consulted on a 1/3/5 road cpz One has NEVER been done before

Listn to what SSBA (the traders association) have ot say on Tuesday.......I know those points do sound dramatic but they are based on reaserch from the Chamber of Commerce. It is EXACTLY what has happened in other areas.

milk76 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz > > Yes absolutely. Ban me from parking on all other > residential streets for one hour, at lunchtime, > Monday to Friday. That works just fine. No > commuters parking all day and residents will still > be able to use their cas to drop off the kids and > get the heavy loads of shopping and park back near > their own front doors. > > Derwent has overwhelmingly clearly voted for this > on it. Milk From memory, the consultation study reckoned that there were about 100 commuters using the area. This was based on cars that are not here overnight. There has been no analysis of how many of those are "rail commuters" vs hospital workers/school teachers/ GM's hairdressers/visitors/ chemist shop workers, etc A one Road CPZ will NOT stop these people driving to East Dulwich. It will stop them parking on Derwent Grove, granted, but they will simply use other close residential streets. My initial opposision to the original (consulted on) design was that it was too small to stop these type or parkers. A 1 or 3 Road affair would be even worse Derwent Grove has proably got the highset parking density in the area. Why is this? - is it becuase it particularly atttracts commuters? I think not. I think its becuase Derwent Grove has simply got more people living per metre of kerb than most other roads in the area. Have you considered, or even asked Southwark council, the actual proposed number of bays on Derwent Grove? The orginal (consulted on) scheme would have given about 100 fewer spaces AFTER the commuters have gone. So, presuming that Derwent was 1/20th of that, that'll be 5 fewer spaces on the Road AFTER your 2.5 commuters have gone. I think Parking will NOT be easier for you. I think it will also cost you ?125 (to rise well above inflation) What I KNOW will happen is that Elsie, Melbourne, EDG, Glengarry, Trossachs, Tarbet will all have to soak any overspill from Derwent. These Roads are already heavily parked up (your not the only ones, try parking on Tarbet during the week). They will get worse. So, what to do? The concept of a trial of some sort is good. We're all arguing over historic examples & consultation data whereas a trial would give us a chance to really see. And if that had been propsoed to me 3 months ago, I genuinly would have said "good idea" But the way that Southwark have shamelessly promoted a CPZ, the heavily biased documentation, and their clear attempt to do anything they can to get in "CPZ wedge" in leaves me under no doubt that it would only be a trial in name. Times are tough for local authorities: they need to raise revnue. Southwark make good money out of permits and related CPZ fines (I forget the exact number, but there is a multi-million pound surplus made every year) . They use that money to offest costs that would normally be covered by council tax. Just how easy do you think it would be to get that failed trial removed? After they've got their "mandate", after the money has been spent doing the formal consutlation, after the roads have been remarked, after the meters have been installed, after the wardens have been employed? I suppose you could always write to your local councillor

removed, should have been on CPZ thread

milk76 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > He is probably the kind of person who is putting > up posters saying that if you love East Dulwich > you will oppose a CPZ. > > Also that it will drop your house price and close > all the shops down. > > But it is the pro CPZ posters who are spinning > things! The posters are being put up by the local business association. They may saound quite dramatic, but every single fact on those posters is FACT

From memory it was 18 people on derwent grove who voted to have a cpz. A cpz tha will cause knock-on effects to a much wider set of people..... Will southwark listen to that wider set in 12 months time? Not a f@?kin hope in hell. Be under no illusion, a derwent only cpz will: A. Reduce available spaces to you B. force many people to park in adjoining roads C. Not improve the quality of life as you expect Its taken 2000 signitures and a 70% vote against and STILL they are trying to push this through ( of course nothing to do with revenue ;-) ) How much of a chance do you think you'd stand of getting a failed cpz taken out? You'd have to get Peter string fellow involved to get southwark to do that

Jasmina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I live on Tintagel Crescent and I'm against the > CPZ scheme. My neighbours that I've spoken to are > also against the scheme. I'm wondering if there > is anyone on Tintagel or Elsie Road who supports > this scheme? You need to speak to councillor barber, he knows loads of people who support the scheme. Apparently

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi DJKQ, > I agree. The consultation was of 22 streets and > whether they wanted to have paid controlled > parking or not and it was clear the consultation > would be considered on a street by street basis. > It also asked residents if they'd change their > mind if a neighbouring street were to proceed. > All the streets in South Camberwell ward were > against. Currently I'm almost jealous of those > Councillors. Nice at decision. > Several street in East Dulwich ward were for or I > vapour our if neighbouring street were planned to > proceed - fear of displacement. > So if it had been a referendum then yes a clear no > result. > > So I hear loud cries of fowl from either camp - > the no camp being clearly much larger and so far > louder. > If we vote no on Tuesday then residents on some > sreets can legitimately claim the Consultation was > rigged saying it said the results would be used on > a street by street basis and that they hadn't > been. > > Hi buddug, > Are you really surprised that as an Easy Dulwich > ward councillor I've had my constituents > contacting me in the way and proportions > described. Clearly email bag of other ward > Councillors will have different proportions. James. I am sorry but you are talking twaddle again: The consultation document did NOT make it clear that this was to be street-by-street consiltation, the proposal that southwark put out showed a clearly defined provisional design: a big red line around the area.

"I did originally take down notices about the CPZ making wild assertions about Southwark Council " James. I think you need to be clear with people here. What EXACTLY did you take down? - is it your position to decide what the public see in these things ? I'm guessing only councillors have access to these?

easytiger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nice to see a comical side developing here. > > What i do not find comical is james barber taking > down the notices in the community notice boards, > AGAIN. This is the third time he has taken down a > notice that is informing people of the up and > coming meetings to discuss the CPZ in ED. > > James, you really are a piece of work and selfish. > Readers, i am not making this personal. But he is. Easy EasyTiger: thats a pretty seroius allegation (even by my standards). How do you know it's councillor Barber?

fazer71 Wrote: > CPZ?s have been introduced all over London and > they seem to work. You should get a job as James Barbers chief of staff. He seems to think that everybody wants a CPZ. I lived under a CPZ (well established) for 18 months. Still had to park on the next street, got tickets , friends got towed, plumber charged an extra ?20, always feared that coming back from holiday there would be the dreaded "bay suspended" sign and my car gone. All in all a REALLY sh*te experience. Oh, and it cost me ?100/year for the privilage. That was a similar situation to ED: we were about 1/2 mile from the tube station, I guess commuter parking had been the motive originally. I don't know how bad (if it was) the parking was before the CPZ there, but I know what it was like under a CPZ: terrible. It was certainly as bad, if not worse, than the current situation around here (I've been walking up Derwent Grove twice a day) I guess it was shear demand: lots of houses converted to flats, lots of affluent people with cars. In that Southwark plan to reduce parking spaces AND will sell a 130% ratio of cars to spaces, is a CPZ really going to work here? REally ? Edited to say: some CPZ do work, I'm sure. I had offices in SE1 for years and the CPZ's there did a very good job. I think this was becuase there was a relative (to here) low density of residents as it was manily offices

PipD Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 41 pages for Godwin's Law, surprised it's taken so > long! LOL ( at myself) It's also a good job that Wikipedia is working today !

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes James is just a politician. > 1 Trying to get votes > 2 Trying to ?help? to get more votes > 3 Trying to ?look like he?s doing the right thing? > to get more votes > Putting that aside. ?That?s stuff we all know? > > He probably has a better balanced view of what the > majority want and need, armed with information > from the specialists and the experiences of others > and conversations with the locals, chances are > we?ll end up with what is required for the benefit > of the majority. > > Voters don?t always know what is best for them. > > The James?s of this world don?t get everything > right, but they do a better job than any kangaroo > court of local neighbours ever would. Hmmmmm, mr barber has a better grasp on opinion than asking every person in the area how they feel? really? He knows better? He certainly hasn't shown that to date? Maybe we should just scrap consultations, votes and all that stuff. We're clearly surrounded by people much smarter than us. Why should we have a say.....we're plebs. I'm going to get jumped on for this ( and it is NOT, repeat NOT aimed at mr barber) but, fazer, German politicians got a lot done in the 30's ( and those Italian railway stations from 1936 are great). . A very extreme example, but, for me, democratic process is not there to be negotiated

> The consultation was clearly asking streets what > they thought, it said the results would be > analysed and reported on a street by street basis. > It wasn't a referendum. > Clearly all the roads consulted in South > Camberwell said no so it was an easy vote to make. > In many respects I wish we had the same > consultation results in East Dulwich ward but we > don't. SOme of our streets have said yes and > others have said yes if a neighbouring street were > to get controls. James: 2 out of 22 streets can be classified as saying "yes". These two were Derwent Grove and Tintagel. On Derwent Grove there was a "majority" of 7 (seven) and on Tintagel, a majoreity of 3 (three). That is a fact. The result of a fairly conducted, comprehensive consultation. Are you REALLY still using a majority of 10 (in total) as an argument against the: 70% overall opposition c.2000 petition signitures 20/22 Roads having a "majority" Local business community saying "no" You say its "not a referendum". Fine. Understood. But if such overwhelming results are to be ignored, then what on earth was the point of a ?80k (I think, please correct if I'm wrong) consultation if your decsion is going to be based on anecdotal "evidence" ? > Someone/s have been dishonestly going around > telling people parking meters are proposed for > Lordship lane/North Cross Road - they're not. > Others has been told controlled parking across all > East Dulwich is proposed - it isn't. This smearing > makes it hard to take into accoutn the petitions > because we don't know whether they're about what > people think is proposed or what is actually > proposed. What I find disappointing is people with > real problems have been lost in all this and no > one is suggesting any other solution/s. Like you, I wouldn't condone this. In my debate with you, I have tried to use hard fact & evidence. But if Southwark Council attempt to impose such things without any communication with the local community, then these things will happen. Also, its worth bearing in mind that the official consultation proposal, sent to all "zone residents" managed to list (from memory) 13 advtantages of CPZs and not a single disadvantage. I'd argue that THAT disinformation is worse than chinse whispers about where the CPZ will be. > As for Liberal Democrats. We have no whip on this > or any other commmunity council decision. I'm > reasonably sure Lib Dem Cllr Crookshank-Hilton > will vote NO. The Village ward Tories I'm sure > will vote NO because they have no streets involved > and you've organised a petition against which > they'd be sensible politically to follow. I'm sure > if the situation was reversed they'd also be in a > quandary to decide what's best. Politically the > easy route would be to vote NO but I've knocked on > all these East Dulwich doors many times and will > be knocking in the future and I have to be able to > explian my vote - not just say I felt bullied. You feel bullied? If thats me (or my words) I will offer a full apology (I am being quite seroius). PM me Personally, I'm feeling quite bullied by Southwark Council over controlled parking.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi grisett, > But you're a Village ward resident. > I've had lots of East Dulwich ward residents and > some businesses tell me they want controlled > parking. I've had some say they don't. I've seen > lots of comments on this forum but most of the > East Dulwich ward residents who live on the > conusltated streets I've spoken to say they're > angry about the forum but didn't want to get > tangled up in the CPZ thread. Oh, I get it, your anecdotal conversations now take priority over the official consultation on the subject....hmmmmm. Well, I've SPOKEN to lots of people who are firmly against a CPZ....do their views count? Oh, and yes, "a village ward resident" - that will get people against him! He's an outsider ! How dare he! At least you've moved away from your stratergy of saying that I was "somebody who wanted to park his car across somebody elses drive". James: I live on Trossachs Road (which you know), it is c.100-150 metres from the edge of the proposed CPZ. Like many 100's of people, I am a stakeholder in this community, and I feel that a CPZ will not deliver it's objectives. Are you implying (again) that such people don't have a say on the CPZ and its effect on our community ? Actually: you fail to mention....how many EAST DULWICH WARD residents have you spoken to who object to this CPZ? Do tell.

> That is completely unreasonable. The whole point > of a vote, is that people vote for what they > believe. James doesn't have to vote with the > majority! I'm sorry, I thought he was meant to "represent" the people of East Dulwich. Oh, silly me.

James. You have to vote on Tuesday to decide whether East Dulwich gets paid/controlled parking or not. Have you decided how you're going to vote yet? - or are you still "consdiering" As a reminder: 70% of respondants to the consultation said NO, 20/22 streets said NO, nearly 2000 local people signed petitions against, local buisness says NO.........are you still undecided? Are you going to vote in line with the clear majority of local residents (who voted for YOU) or are you going to do your own, Lib Dem, thing

This coming Tuesday, our elected representatives will vote on whether to allow paid controlled parking in East Dulwich. We?ve had a long and detailed debate here on this forum about a CPZ. My views remain unchanged: the scheme(s) put forward by Southwark are fundamentally flawed, will not deliver their objectives (to reduce commuter parking) and will have an overall detrimental effect on the local community as a whole. I know there are parking problems, this scheme will not solve them, it will move them. The vote on Tuesday will be based on Southwarks own consultation that found 70% of respondants are opposed to the scheme and 20/22 roads consulted are opposed to the scheme. In fact, the schemes that Southwark council are currently proposing have been thought up AFTER the consultation results as a cynical attempt to force controlled parking in to our area (IMO) Despite all of this, the East Dulwich Lib Dem Councillors are intent on pursuing their own agenda on this. These people are showing their true colours. They call themselves liberal (which implies ?free?) but, in fact, put their party policy over the will of the people who elected them. They will say ?no, we?ve got to think about everybody?. I just don?t buy that. When the residents of Bermondsey fought (successfully) the introduction of a CPZ, they noted how useless their Lib Dem councillors had been: http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/00,news,23484,5222,00.htm&print=yes They also call themselves Democrats......hmmm.....I think they KNOW what the majority want here I have asked James Barber time and time again how he?ll vote, but he?s refused to say. He?s come up with excuse after excuse ?got to get my thoughts together, the reports only just out, it?s Christmas, I?m undecided?. And, frankly, I take offence at James Barber telling me that he?s trying to do the right thing, whilst cynically manipulating the consultation results to build a case ?for? See: http://jamesbarber.mycouncillor.org.uk/2011/12/23/controlled-parking-consultation/ But the time for James to vote is fast approaching. Is he going to do the right thing and vote with that 70% majority or will he do the same as his lib dem collegues in Bermondsey and abstain ? (his voters are watching) Two weeks ago Camberwell council did the right thing: they clearly rejected the CPZ ?as democrats?. They acknowledged that such a clear message from the electorate cannot be ignored. After all, isn?t that the whole point of democracy? I know one local councillor, Tobey Eckersley ( a Tory), who has already stated that: ?I expect to express and represent that view [ that the majority of people in his ward were opposed to the scheme], pursuant to my representative duties, at the Dulwich Community Council meeting on 24 January? This man has got the decency and honesty to vote based on the wishes of the people who voted for HIM. James Barber, Rosie Shimmel & Jonathan Mitchell are the three East Dulwich Councillors. They are all Lib Dems. I fear that they will all block vote (or abstain at best) ; putting their political agenda ahead of their voters wishes. If they do, then it will be a sad day for this area, a sad day for democracy and a sad day for the liberal democrat party. They will have acted neither liberally or democratically. If they don?t, then I will enjoy a plate of slowly cooked trilby with a Havana sauce. Luckily, there are 6 other councillors on the Community Council. Hopefully these people will see sense and not let their political agenda prevail. It is essential that people show these people the strength of local feeling and that we are not prepared to be trodden on like this: .MAKE SURE YOU ATTEND THE COMMUNITY COUNCIL MEETING TO EXPRESS YOUR VIEWS 7PM This Tuesday St Barnabas Church, Carlton Avenue edited to say: sorry this is now party political......but thats not my fault. Before anybody acuuses me of being an agent of Cameron or Milliband, I'm not.

James. Stop trying to change the world and focus on the concerns of the people who voted for you. As much as you try to tell us that youve only got our concerns at heart, time and time again you show your true colours: you have a political agenda that you you wish to try out on the people of east dulwich

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > gsirett > > The figures quoted make no sense. Incompenent > Southwark. You should be fighting against the poor > details NOT the whole CPZ. You are fighting the > wrong fight. > > The CPZ will make life better for ME and ALL the > residents within the CPZ see the quality of life > in CPZ Chelsea Fulham Herne Hill etc etc etc > > The misinformation which is being spread is just a > disgrace. Fazer. All of the figures I've quoted are either publically avaiable from Southwark or in their own consultation documentation. The "net drop of 150 spaces" is a figure that I worked out WITH a counil officer, based on their own surevey data I agree. It doesn't make sense. So instead of bleating on about how you "know" it will make everybodys life better, why don't you have a detailed look at their proposals (as I have) and tell me how it will make your life better. Edited to say: and also I HAVE lived in a CPZ. Overall, I'd say a reduction in quality of life.Still couldn't park outside my house (often next street) , people got towed, got tickets, the plumber cost more and the whole thing cost me ?100/year

fazer71 Wrote: > My view is that well implemented CPZ will get rid > of commuter parking and clear many unused cars > from the CPZ area. Don't disagree but none of the proposals put forward by Southwark ARE well implmented. As I've said from the beginning, their design is fundamentally flawed. As for the 1 Road CPZ, even their own officers admit that this is not likely to work. Fazer, I guess you live on Derwent? - come and try parking on Glengarry. It's no better. Or try Thorncome. Or Ashbourne Grove. Or the other end of Melbourne. These are Roads that (guess) don't currently suffer "commuter problems". It's just theres a lot of people in the area with cars. These are all Roads OUTSIDE the proposed CPZ which are easy walking distance from the station that will have to soak any commuters not using Derwent. BTW: Southwark sell up to 130% ratio of permits to spaces. Oh, and there will be a net drop of 150 spaces (their own figures) after the commuters leave Fazer, please tell me how this is going to make your life better?