gsirett

I have just returned from the Camberwell Community council. The council voted unanimously against the introduction of a CPZ (they voted for option 2: to make some, non CPZ, changes) Both Peter John and another councillor made the point that it was the only democratic thing to do, given the results of the consultation and the overwhelming community opposistion to such a scheme. Well said. Will the East Dulwich councillors have the same opinion on the 24th of February? Don?t rely on it, make sure you attend

YOU CAN HAVE A SAY: Anybody wishing to get their views over to the community council can put forward a deputation. If accepted, these can be read put by the person at the meeting. You have to be representing a group of people (I think minimum of 6 is the benchmark). For example, I will be submitting one on behlaf of a number of residents of my/adjoining Roads. It is too late for tonights meeting, but anybody wishing to do one for the Dulwich meeting (which is on 24th Jan, 7PM, St Barnabus church) needs to be submitted to Beverley.Olamijulo@SOUTHWARK.GOV.UKby this Friday (13th) The detailed instructions are below. They need to

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Apart from those people wishing to use people's > residential streets as their own carpark for > convenience purposes, there are long term issues > that should be considered. > > Anything that reduces or restricts the use of cars > in the urban environment should be heavily biased > in favour of implementation. > > The geopolitical, environmental, social and health > impact of private cars has been relentlessly > negative: breaking up our societies into quivering > heaps of dislocated individuals choking on > particulates whingeing about gangs and islamic > fundamentalism. > > As with many of the most disruptive and > short-sighted strategies of our society, the > campaign for car freedom is lead by right wing > ageing males, willing to sacrifice others at the > altar of their own self-indulgence simply because > they'll never have to pay the price. > > Were I to make it to that community meeting, I'd > be having a close look at some of the 'protestors' > and asking whether I honestly could share their > motivations. Hugenot. Without any sarcasm, I agree (nearly 100%) with what you're saying (we've done it at last!) The only bit i disagree with is that any of the CPZ propsals put forward by southwark for Grove Vale area will make a blind bit of difference to any of the issues you mention. Oh, and BTW, I'd love to give you a lift to the CC meeting, but I'll be going on my bike

garnwba Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz - the introduction of a CPZ will have a > significant reduction in the number of people who > choose to park in the station area which is the > main reason why so many people living outside it > are against it > > The whole reduction in parking spaces.... that > will have little to no impact when compared to: > > No commuters > Residents not wishing to pay > > people might not like CPZ but there can be no > doubt that in the main they achieve their > objectives on the roads they are introduced on. sorry for shouting, but it doesnt seem to go in: THERE WILL BE A NET REDUCTION IN PARKING AFTER THE COMMUTERS HAVE BEEN REMOVED. This is in Southwarks own proposal document (although they fail to highlight it). Paul Gellard (officer responsible) stood in GV library and helped me work it out I'm sure CPZ's can/do deliver their objectives (said earlier, I've seen them work really well) but this design won't. If you can tell me how fewer residents spaces compared with the current number of residents vehicles will imporve the situtation, please do.

garnwba Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You want to park outside your house.... which is > exactly the same as the people for the CPZ got me: spot on, you're right. Not bothered about the impact on our community,businesses or any of my fellow residents at all. What do they matter? As long as my car can sit outside my house, thats all I care about. In fact, I really should ask for a CPZ in my road then. Thats a good idea. I suppose the other 1825 people all feel the same way?

James Barber Wrote: > study is quite clear no controlled parking is > proposed for the streets within Camberwell > Community Council area. James, thanks for the information. I know you have constantly implied that the CPZ is only the busienss of the people within the zone, but there are many, many people who will be impacted by it (not in the zone) who have a right to be represented. With the crazy 1/3 Road scheme, this becomes EVEN more apparent. Lots of people in South Camberwell are potentially now going to be living NEXT to a CPZ Just so people are fully in the picture: this CPZ is likely to have an effect on those people in the Camberwell Ward Roads, so it is important that people have their say. And it is important that the CC recognises this impact and makes recommednations based upon it. IMO, with people like you are Barry Hargrove pushing this scheme, it is essentail that the COMMUNITY Councils do the RIGHT thing and align themselves with the majority of people they represent in our COMMUNITY. [edited to say: sorry if I seem to have jumped on James for simply trying to provide some information. It's just after eating his diet of biased, spun nonsense for the last few weeks, I just can't help it]

We have had a 2 month debate on this forum about the problems & merits of a CPZ in East Dulwich. I am left with the opinion that the scheme proposed by Southwark will have a net negative effect on our area. I don't believe parking will get much easier for people within the zone (fewer spaces), I believe it will get much more difficult for a number of roads outside. It will not stop the people at GM's or the chemist driving to work. "Real" commuters will still be able to park within a 6 minute walk of the station. It will grow. The people of Roads close to it's boundary will be forced into having one to deal with the displacement. It will quickly be into the Roads around Lordship Lane. CPZ?s work in many parts of the Borough (I owned a business in SE1. CPZ there was essential and worked well), but the scheme suggested for us is flawed and will not work. The local chamber of commerce are petrified that it will damage trade and alter the face of Lordship Lane forever. It's easy to dismiss this voice (?local traders whinge about anything that affects their business?) but their fears are based on solid research. Mary Portas, the governments "High St Tsar" identifies free parking as the no.1 way to maintain a vibrant high st. The "economy" of LL is sensitive: people will not stop using their cars, they'll just go somewhere where they CAN park. We will loose the small, independent traders that we love (I?m not making this up: I spoke to a few of them last week and their margins are VERY tight) Of course, there is the underlying issue of too much car use and sustainable transport. We can't carry on like this (unless they hurry up with cold fusion). But, a CPZ in our area will not change this. There will be no fewer cars on the planet if this scheme goes in. There will be no fewer journeys. We'll still use the same amount of fossil fuel. Southwark council have been devious and extremely sneaky in their approach to this. Southwark DO CPZ's: it is their policy (Southwark planning policy section 5.6 if anybody?s interested). They make a lot of money out of CPZ?s. (ring-fenced so they can only spend it on sweets and chocolate). They just won?t admit it to you that?s all. And, please people, think long and hard about ?experimental? CPZ?s. If a local authority is prepared to ignore public opinion to this extent BEFORE creating a new cash-cow, how quickly do you think they?ll rip out all those machines once they?ve installed them ? Also think about those ?experimental? parking tickets that you?ll get. Try telling that to the parking tribunal. But for me, this has now not just become an issue about the CPZ. It has become an issue about local democracy. An issue about a set of people, who have been elected by us, trying to railroad through their own set of policies and ignoring the people who voted for them. A set of people only presenting one side of a case. A set of people skewing information. A set of people making commitments to their voters and then potentially not keeping them. And, be under no illusion that this is party policy. I?ve spoken personally to a few of our local councillors over the last few weeks and there is 100% correlation between their party colour and how they feel about a CPZ in Dulwich. I'm afraid, that is an absolute travesty. It can not be allowed. The man responsible for the decision on this went on BBC radio and refused to acknowledge the 70% of people who have said ?no? in the consultation, 2000 people sign petitions, 20/22 Roads say no. Instead, he used his time to go on about ?a lot of people want a CPZ? ..... 2 out of 22 Roads. Even on those two Roads in isolation , a total of 27 people have said ?yes? vs 16 saying no. That?s a mandate of 11 people across Derwent Grove and Tintagel crescent. It seems these people will ignore their own consultation results , they will ignore petitions, they will ignore the advice of the chamber of commerce. Please, please, please make sure you attend the Community Council meetings personally so they cannot ignore YOU 7pm 10 January Camberwell Community Council is proposed to be held at Jessie Duffett Hall, 92 - 94 Wyndham Road, London SE5 0UB.

[sorry, posted in worng place. Removed]

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I hr CPZ is the thin end of the wedge. It opens > > the door for CPZ to creep and expand. > > > That's not the experience in Herne Hill and other > areas it keeps the commuters out ... > beautifully... Southwarks own figures for their scheme show a net reduction in parking spaces AFTER the commuters are removed. I (genuinely) am happy to be told if I'm missing something here, but how will that mean that people can park more easily? My guess is that it will simply move "the problem" on to adjoining streets. The "CPZ light" option means that those adjoining streets will be within walking distance of ED station. And, actually, yes that IS the epxereicne in Herne Hill.....their scheme has been extended twice I think and there was a consultation recently (last year??) about extending it up to North Dulwich.

>I expect the draft report to be presented to the Dulwich and Camberwell Community Councils in January 2012 before a >key decision is taken by the Cabinet member for Transport, Enviroment and Recycling in early 2012. >Yours Sincerely. >Councillor Barrie hargrave. But Barrie, you ARE the Cabinet member for Transport, Enviroment and Recycling. Or did you forget that? It would be good if Barrie Hargrove stopped pretending that there was some sort of complex "decision computer" involved in this. He decides. He reads the consultation, "listens" to the 2 x community councils and then HE decides. To my knowdge, there is no set formula, there's some stuff about "balancing needs". But: it's just him really. So, it is pretty strange that he keeps forgetting it's him. On the radio on Friday, he talked of the commnity making a decision

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- A consultation > has been entered into, and the next step is a > meeting scheduled for later this month when > undoubtedly many views and arguments will be taken > into account. > > It's important that people don't inflame sentiment > by making untrue claims. Southwarks own website: the 2 x community council meetings(tomorrow and 24th) can be used to express public feeling on the issues but, using southwarks own words, they are not part of their consultation.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Gsirett, you must have missed someing somewhere? > > Firstly, It is apparent that within the > consultation and the petitions, the debate has > actually moved on from simple counts to the > relative weights of the interested parties. > > With a 1 hour arrangement traders are negligibly > affected, commuters are the exploiters, and Herne > Hill shows us the 'edge' residents are unlikely to > be affected to the degree they claim. > > Their views should be weighted accordingly. > > Secondly, as the financial crisis has taught us, > and however unreasonable it may seem, the general > public tend to run with things that seem to give > them immediate gratification rather than their > long term benefit. > > Whether it's crazy borrowing beyond their means, > or rejecting vehicle regulations, the public > 'feeling' sometimes need to be tempered with long > term planning and insight. > > This should also be weighted accordingly. I haven't missed anything. I STILL believe that such overwhelming public feeling (with hard data to back it up) should not be ignored. And it has. I still believe is a Council tells me it will "consult" that they are sort of obliged to read the results of that consultation. Your Council (and certain councillors) WANT the debate to move on. It's called rail-roading or steamrolling a policy through On your second point:I do understand that sometimes there is a greater good that needs to be addressed. Of course I do. In fact, that has really been my argument all along: lets not look at isolated parking problems: lets look at the whole community and all of the stakeholders. Lets balance all of these But will a CPZ on Derwent Grove have any form of "greater Good"? - really ? Will it have any net envoronmental benefit? But this scheme is simply badly conceived. If it's objectives are truthful,it will not deliver them. The initial design will REDUCE the number of residents spaces. How will it work ????? As for the "lite" CPZ (a CPZ on 1 or 3 streets). There is no design to commment on, becuase it's only just been thought up. Also, it is acknowledged that this has never been done before and carries sustantial risks. I (or anybody else) haven't been asked whether we want such a scheme

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I used to live on Brixton Hill 20+ years ago. The > parking was horrendous there and then. It was a 5 > min stroll down to Brixton tube. I'm not sure > we're fortunate or unfortunate in not having a > tube station. But we don't, so the attractions of > East Dulwich for comjuters are not the same order > of magnitude or likely to rippled outwards the > same. > The proposals are also for 1hour controlled > parknig rather than all day. But it would still > change the character to some degree and have some > risk of spread and it might not work have the > desired affect. I used to live in Clapham. The parking there was horrendous too. Could nver get parked anywhere near the flat. The difference was, it used to cost me ?100/ year for that, I got clamped and had to pay the plumber extra money. A CPZ hadn't fixed that problem either. James - it's good that you're back in the debate. I guess, now you're at least acknowldgeing some disadvantages, it's time to work out how to decide on this issue. I know, lets have a consultation and ask local people what they want. Also, lets get them to write to their councillors or create petitions if they object. Lets ask local businesses. Lets use all these things to judge public feeling. Whats that you say? "we've done that already". Ah, fantastic. What were the results then?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > CPZ. Yes most streets consulted have said they > don't want controlled parking - espeically those > north of Grove Vale. Some streets have said they > do want controlled parking to avoid the parking > stress they currently suffer. The proposals for > controlled parking are now for 1hour on an > experimental basis. > As for businesses on Grove Vale I'd have thought > having more local parking available with commuter > parking gone would be of help to them. James, just so nobody gets confused by your summaries: 1. "some streets" = 2 (out of 22 consulted) 2. the current proposals are for "experimenatl" CPZ's on 1 or 3 Roads only .These have never been done before and NOT been consulted on with the local community. They have only appeared AFTER 70% of respondents to the consultation said NO. Also, could you please answer the following question: In that, you and many others at southwark seem prepared to ignore 70% majority in your own consultation, 2000 people signinig peitions, local businesses BEFORE putting in your CPZ, could you please clarify what people would have to do to getting rid of the "experimental" CPZ AFTER all of the markings have been put down, the machines installed and the extra wardens employed? Please no wishy-washy answers.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I understand a few of them come from Scutari Road > ;-) Stop exaggerating, you should get a job as James barbers assistant. There is one poster on this thread who has said he's from scutari. Most seem to be from I. Or around the proposed cpz area. And if "mr scutari" is involved in this area, uses Lordship lane for his shopping, maybe has kids at school , etc then he is Aslo a stakeholder and should speak up

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A very eloquent post there gsirett. For what it is > worth it has me swayed. Then HenryB, I hope you'll join me at the community council meeting on Tuesday

garnwba Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well i am of the mindset that CPZ's do work and it > is the best solution and it would reduce commuter > traffic in the station area drasticly with zero > effect on trade - so i don't think anothr solution > needs to be found > > We just need to find a way of getting more people > to like it... which is probaly cost > I suspect for every ? the permit cost is reduced, > the more people will be in favour (within the CPZ > area).. > > Council - reduce the fee and fix it for 3 years > > Hey presto a majority within the propsed zone This isn't just about cost though. This is about balalncing the desire of some people to park outside their houses (not an unreasonable thing to want) with the impact that this scheme will have on them and many others in our community. These many others include local businesses, those in the zone who currently dont expereince a problem, those outside the zone and others such as tradesmen and delivery drivers. All of these people, along with those who expeience parking problems, make up our community. I've prevoiusly written: I lived under a, long established, CPZ (lambeth) It didn't guarentee a parking space, I often had to park a street away, people got clamped, people got towed and it cost ?c100 per year. It was a whole load of stress. If Lambeth had consulted to REMOVE it, I would bet (complete guess, don't jump on me) that near 100% would have said yes. But they didn't ever ask that, funnily enough. The "edge effects" of such schemes are well documented. Put in a CPZ and people around it will suffer. Another balance. My main gripe with this scheme has been that it won't deliver it's objectives. It's too small to stop any commuter parking (Im just outside zone, and I'm a 7 minute walk to platform 1 of ED station) and (despite southwark trying to obscure the info) THERE WILL BE A NET DROP IN PARKING PLACES - after any commuters have been removed. A lot of people have forgotton that little fact. Oh, and they will sell 130% permit/space ratio. The 3 "out of nowhere, not consulted on" options currently being put forward would make this issue even worse. If Southwark, for example, put in a CPZ in Derwent only, that leaves 21 roads in the consulted area who are now also on that fringe. The problem is that any commuters currently using Derwent (and any residents in Derwent who doesn't fancy paying 125 PA) will just go to Elsie, Melbourne,etc,etc,etc. I've got no data to back up this next comment, but I would guess that Derwent (with lots of flats) has got a very high number of residetns cars (i.e more people = more cars. Not scientific I know) . After Southwark have taken away quite a few of the spaces (offset with a smaller number of commuters) - what are people left with????? Answers on a ?125 postcard please Just imagine: the top end of Derwent is CPZ whereas the bottom end of Elsie isn't. Think it through. Would any sane traffic planner recommend that if there was no hidden agenda? Such a small scheme has NEVER been used, anywhere, before and Southwark ideitfy this as a huge risk in their report and that is why the same council officers advised that a single road CPZ just wasn't practical during the Herne Hill/ North Dulwich Consultation. But a year or so later, they actually recommend one just up the road. Hmmmmm I REALLY am no conspiracy theorist, but over the last couple of months I've learnt a lot about the workings of our local politicians and what drives them. I appreciate that they have to balance budgets, fundinng lines, long term plans, etc with the immediate demands of the voters BUT I will not accept these people lying, twisting and keeping their real agenda hidden. I put my faith in the consultation. I have said numerous times: if it turns out that people want it, fair enough, I'll go with the majority, otherwise we won't . James Barber & Peter John have both said the same thing but they now have gone very quiet. Barrie Hargrove had to stop himself on the radio this moring: BBC Presenter: "He said one in four overall wanted it, that still means three quarters didn?t, and in a democracy that means it shouldn?t happen, surely? " Barrie Hargrove: Er.. er.. I d.. don?t think that the process is er.. is a case of whether people you know, th.. the numbers and exact numbers.. it?s a bit more of a sophisticated process than that.. it?s basically, we?ve got CPZs right across our borough and we.. we give residents the opportunity to.. to respond to a consultation and then what we?ll do is.. is come up with er.. er.. s.. some outcomes out of that and give them the chance to have further say before we.. before we make a decision. I trusted these people. They have failed me.

I'd really hoped that Paul Ross would have given me the chance to speak to Cllr Hargrove on air so I could cut through his diabolical spin. Cllr Hargrove has shown his colours prevoiusly: when highlighted that most people in the area didn't know about the consultation , so could he extend it for a couple of weeks (which was request by another councillor), he refused. Funny , I would have thought he's relish the chance of getting more response to his consultation ? Here is the scary bit.... This man has single-handed executive power of decision making on this issue. He decides, on his own, whether we get a CPZ. It doesn't go to a vote, a comittee, it's just him. This is a man who tells all of London that the outcome after a consultation is "more sophisticated" than the 70% who said no. REALLY BARRIE, REALLY ? Let us all in to your sophisticated process then. Tell all. Ask yourselves: do you trust him to make an impartial decsion, not influended by poilital agenda or party pressue ? If your answer is anything but 100% yes, then you MUST attend the Community Council meetings. The only chance we have of stopping this is at these meetings and only if the councillors make strong recommendations to Barrie Hargrove not to proceed). One of those Councillors (James Barber) seems intent on not changing his mind, whatever we all say, so we MUST show our feelings in person So far, Southwark have ignored 2000 signitures, 70% of respondents to their own consultation and 20 out of the 22 streets consulted. So, don?t leave it to others. Get to those meetings and please make sure as many people in our community as possible are aware of this situation

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- . > But as I've stated the consultation asked 22 > streets whether a majority on each of those > streets wanted to be part of a controlled parking > zone. Three of the 10 streets in East Dulwich ward > have said yes bordering ones yes if a neighbouring > street were proposed to proceed with controlled > parking. Here you go again: spin, spin, spin, carefully selcting data in order to paint the picture you want the people who voted for you to see. The facts, James (from Southwarks own consultation): 20/22 street have said NO 70% of respondents have said NO nearly 2000 people on petitions have said NO The loacl business community has said NO But you know these facts, don't you? You just seem to keep skipping them and highlighing anything you can find to justify the scheme that you have supported for so long. Oh, and blatently changing a few key numbers: thats cute. shame on you At no point during the debate on this or the offial consultation have you or anybody mentioned that a 1 or 3 Road only CPZ could be introduced. The consultation put forward a planned design around 22 streets, not 1, not 3, but 22 - thats what we were all asked about. Oh, an also, such a small CPZ has never been done before and the effects and risks are unknown - hmm James - local councillors are publically accountable. I think it is perfectly reasonable, given the controversy over this issue and your deep involvment in the debate, that we ask how you intend to vote. I won't remind you again about the numerous commitments you've made to honour the view of the people on this issue. > I also asked you before Christmas who leaked the > officers report to you and you've completely > silent on that. > When do you think you'll answer that question? Ah, yes, the consultation report. Somebody from Southwark Council did show me the results 12 hours before it was published. What do you think drove them to do that? Could be: They were proabably worried that you'd get hold of it first and spin it out of all recognition like you did on your blog and have tried to do on the EDF (noticed you've since taken that post down on your blog - good move). I tell you what: tell your constituants how you're going to vote and I'll tell you how I came to see the report 12 hours early It's pretty irrelevant who it was

James would you be as good as to tell the people on this thread how you will be voting at the upcoming Community Council over the proposed controlled parking at East Dulwich station. You have failed to do so on the thread relating to it You have made prevoius commitments, and I quote: "And no I haven't prejudged what my reaction to residents responses. If it's clear they are for or against that will be what I try to ensure happens" The consultation has now been completed and despite 70% of people saying "no" to a CPZ, 20/22 Roads rejecting it and nearly 2000 local rwesidents and busiensses signing peitions against, you have posted today that you're mind isn't yet made up. Even more concerning are your attmepts over the last couple of days to pressent such compounding results in a very innacurate way. So, are you going to vote with the people who elected you or are you going to carry on with your own political agenda (without telling anyone) ? For those of you reading who haven't been following our councillors activities, have a look at some of his posts today and make up your own mind. Oh, and bear it in mind at election time

JAmes- please tell us how and why you believe that some respondents were commuters. I was under the impression that the officers carefully checked against electoral role, etc

Yes, James Barber, that gets my vote too: you have used this forum for your political ends for quite some time now. You have debated the CPZ with much vigour and constantly stressed you wouldn't decide until the report was out. Its been out a fortnight. So, can you please tell the people of this forum what your formal position now is? - what will YOUR vote be at the community council ?

James barber- you are shamefully manipulating the results of the consultation on order to promote your agenda You are deceitful and dishonest Shame on you. Shame on you

I guess it depends on whether the other councillors read it with the same level of bias and pre-determination as you James. If those others act with a bit of honour, and in order to support the views of their constituants, then the CPZ should be firmly rejected.

Do you need the same people to tell you the result of the consultation James? What a joke