gsirett

put these in your diary DO NOT RELY ON OTHERS TO GO ON YOUR BEHALF - do not rely on your local councillors to represent your views (especially if you're in East Dulwich Ward) 7pm 24 January Dulwich Community Council will be held at St Barnabas Church 40 Calton Avenue SE21 7DG and the chair person has agreed to largely hand over - as much as he can - the meeting to discussing the CPZ. 7pm 10 January Camberwell Community Council is proposed to be held at Jessie Duffett Hall, 92 - 94 Wyndham Road, London SE5 0UB. North and east of Grove Vale is covered by CCC, south of Grove Vale by DCC

Eddie is right. The weazles that you voted for will do just that. What can you do ? 1. Write to your councillors to ask that the result of the consultation is properly honoured. I worte to mine and asked: "I am writing to ask you formally, as my councillors that you take some action on this issue to represent my views (which I'm sure reflect the majority in the ward). I know that you have all been interested in this subject and been involved to a certain degree but , to my knowledge, none of you have come out clearly in objection to the scheme to date. I believe that it is now time for you to do so. In that this is a single person, executive decision, I believe that the time for carefully chosen, balanced views has finished. 2. Make sure you attend the relevant community council meeting. DO NOT RELY ON OTHERS TO DO IT FOR YOU.

Cyclemonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > gsiret - thanks - a useful summary. So if LL is > not included why are the LL traders getting > worried? > > I am astonished people drive to East Dulwich Rail > Station - have they not heard of buses? (or indeed > their own legs - saves quite a bit on the > expensive gym membership) > > I accept that people in London will always need to > drive whether due to their work (anti social > hours, carrying tools etc..) becuase of disabilty > or large numbers of children etc.. But i think a > lot of people in london see driving as the default > option when it really isn't that difficult to cut > back or even eliminate car usage in many areas of > London. We walk, cycle, bus or train everywhere. > Use online delivery for all bulky items and use > streetcar/streetvan for those times when you just > need a car. CycleMonkey. Sorry, this is going to sound almost rude.............The consultation about whether people want a CPZ or not has now finished. the pro's & cons of cars, CPZ's generally, this specific scheme, the councils poor approiach to consultation, the revnue raisd, etc,etc,etc have now all been done to death on this thread. If you have a look back, you'll see. The results were an overwhelimng objection. The debate is now whether Southwark are going to honour the results of that consultation

Cyclemonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wow - controversial subject!1 > > I live in ED but am happy to say as a non car > owning tenant i have little persoanl opinion on > the subject. > > However walking along lordship lane yesterday i > saw that clearly something has to be done - the > parking and traffic situation is ridiculous (as > well as the dangerous driving, bad parking, lack > of decent road crossing once you get further away > from the pedestrian crossing by the EDT. > > As a non driver the one thing that always amuses > me is motorists who compain about problems (lack > of parking, congestion etc..) without realising > that they are part of the problem - it is always > some other drivers fault right? > > So i suppose i have two questions: > > 1. for those against the CPZ - uif we admit that > parking is an issue in East Dulwich - if this > isn't the answer what is? > > 2. For traders - would a CPZ really affect > business that much? As soemone who used to work > in planning and town centre policy i understand > and occasionally agree with arguements traders > make for more parking and against > pedestrianisation schemes. However Lordship Lane > is not a major shopping area - it is a local high > street which probably has a radius of around 2- 3 > miles max for people. Furthermore the main offer > of shops and services sell stuff that does not > need a car to transport. With the amount of > trains and busesin he area do many people honestly > need to drive there? Comming from the countryside > one of my main loves about living in inner london > is i no longer need to manitain and run a car - a > huge financial burden lifted from me. > > i would be interested in some honest answers from > people who do drive to go shopping in LL as to why > they do and how far they have travelled from and > whether they would stiop shopping there if they > were not able to drive (BTW do not use the "if you > had kids" argument - my partner and i have been > bringing up a child in inner london for the last > 10 years with no car - we are fitter and have a > child who does not mind walking!) CycleMonkey Welcome to the thread your comments are competly valid and sort of hit the nail on the head. There are parking problems, nobbody denies, but how to fix them (if at all) is the question. The proposed CPZ wouldn't sort out the problems on LL becuase it doesn't cover it. It's a badly thought out scheme that uses commuters as it's reason to be. The proposed scheme actually will reduce the number of avaialbe parking spaces and have major knock-on effects on it's edge (think Ashbourne Grove, Melbourne, Lordship lane), making parking worse there. If you look back through this thread you will seem overwhelmingly people object to the scheme proposed BUT they are not necessairly buring their heads in the sand on the issue.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But people on several streets want controlled > parking on their streets. Oh My god YOU'RE DOING IT AGAIN: TWO (repeat TWO) streets out of 22 have said yes so you turn that into "several"? > 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: please stop this, you are making an utter fool of yourself (IMO). Those 44 "desperate" people (crawling over burnt out cars no doubt) to come and tell you their woes. I'll give you 2000 "desperate" people who objected to this so strongly that they signed petitions Two "realistic" solutions HAVE been recommended in the report (do nothing or make some simple [non chargeable] amendments to the existing road markings) - but you seem to ignore them ? What is SO dishonourable about your behaviour is that you have stressed time and time again that we should all trust the consultation process, not second guess it's results. In fact, you encouraged any petitions to reflect it's format. But now you ignore it ? I think you did all of that, on the basis that you EXPECTED the consultation return a pro-CPZ result. The consultation has now returned overwhelming against a CPZ, so suddenly you become defender of the few. Funnily enough, that fits perfectly with the quickly-dreamt-up Southwark options to put in single/3 Road CPZ's This is getting smelly again I'll remind you of some of your own words over the past weeks: 9th November: "i didn't ask officers for this and was surprised when it came up on Labours plans but I'm delighted RESIDENTS ARE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY WHETHER THEY RESPOND THEY WANT IT OR NOT." 7th November: "But the public consultation is about streets near East Dulwich station with TWO POSSIBLE versions of controlled parking." I think I've said various times THAT I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THE COUNCIL TO HAVE FORMALLY CONSULTED MORE WIDELY. That as an opposition councillor I failed to persuade the administration to formally consult adjoining streets 7 November "I've suggested to people in neighbouring streets that they respond to the consultation and if they feel very strongly that they call on neighbours." 6 Nov "The advice I've given to people is call on your neighbours, ask them whether they agree or disagree with controlled parking on their street, if they do whether the heavy or lite versions, and whether if a neighbouring street they'd want controlled parking on their street. By capturing those for and against you make such a petition look more credible. This is exactly the same advice I've given to those in favour who've asked. 3rd Nov "The evidence seems clear that a CPZ would help BUT is the price in money etc worth paying? I ENCOURAGE AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION BY RESPONDING TO THE CONSULTATION - " - "

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I also would welcome people telling me their views > individually. what, so they can be as open and transparent as this process has been so far ? People have told you. They've told you here. They've told you by petition, they've told you during your own consultation. But time and time again, you quote to us anecdotal information and blatantly "washed" summaries. > I haven't made up my mind but I am worried that > the cheap easy politics of this is to go with the > do nothing option and make soft soapy noises to > people on the streets that feel angry about > parking pressures. > The report didn't make it clear that over the last > three years of the 130 complaints made to > Southwark about parking pressures 44 were on these > streets. James - you are talking utter utter B&8llocks. The report made that VERY clear. It was the entire raison d'etre for a consultation. The report also made the following VERY clear : In answer to the key question ?Do you agree with the introduction of a CPZ in your street??........ overall Yes= 24% (95) No = 70% (279) Responses from within the CPZ boundary Yes= 35% (84) No=59% (143) Responses from outside the CPZ boundary: Yes=7% (11) No=88% (136) It also made it very clear that, in the period of a few weeks 1826 people signed petitions against this scheme. Based on 2 weeks, thats 130 people per day. Versus the 44 in 3 YEARS that you quote who made complaints. So, why on why do you choose to ignore this? - what on earth is the point of a consultation ? I agree with previous poster: your days as a local councillor are going to be numbered if you continue to ignore your voters. And BTW: I also agree. Your attempt to align a CPZ with disabled bays was a cheap trick which shows the contempt with which you are treating people on this issue. For the record: I think disabled bays , double yellow lines and school zig-zags are all great...... I think poorly planned, revenue raising, inappropriate controlled parking isn't great (as are gerrymandering local councillors)

I'm sorry, I have been accused of being a bit forthright with my views on Cllr James Barber in respect to this whole CPZ business but after reading this http://jamesbarber.mycouncillor.org.uk/2011/12/23/controlled-parking-consultation/ I think my views are now justified. - 70% saying No to ?Do you agree with the introduction of a CPZ in your street?? - Only 2/22 Roads consulted in favour of CPZ - 98% of petition signatures saying ?No? So where does that Blog come from Cllr Barber ? You have cynically portrayed the data in a way that gives the impression that there was an equal balance to the results of this consultation. A brilliant piece of political writing: you write a summary of the consultation report without mentioning any of the key results. No wonder you were upset when the report results came out a bit early - didn't give you time to spin it properly did it ? When are you going to come out an represent the people who have elected you ? Shouldn?t you now be focused on representing the views of the 100?s of your constituents who have objected to this scheme ? I?m not in Cllr Barbers Ward, but I suggest that those of you who are, write to him and ask him to properly represent their views instead of pursuing his own agenda behind a veil of impartiality

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You beat me to it Nicholas Spear. I'm sure many people on this forum, and throughout the community are keen to hear your opinion of the report cllr barber

I?ve had early sight of the Draft Consultation Report from Southwark. It is due to be published on Friday and available from the Southwark website. It streteches to 44 pages so here?s the very quick summary: In answer to the key question ?Do you agree with the introduction of a CPZ in your street??........ overall Yes= 24% (95) No = 70% (279) Responses from within the CPZ boundary Yes= 35% (84) No=59% (143) Responses from outside the CPZ boundary: Yes=7% (11) No=88% (136) Of the 22 Roads consulted, only 2 were in favour (Derwent and Tintagel) Other recorded communication, not official consultation responses: out of 53 received, 40 were against a CPZ, 8 supported. Petitions There were 9 petitions handed in. A total of 1826 signatures (98%) recorded against the CPZ, 29 (2%) in favour Recommendations In conclusion, the report gives a choice of 5 recommendations to be discussed at the 2 x Community Councils: 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 4. Experimental one hour CPZ in Derwent, Elsie, Jarvis, Melbourn, Oxonian,Tintagel, Zenoria 5. Experimental one hour CPZ in Derwent, Elsie, Tintagel My opinion The people have been consulted and the people have firmly told Southwark Council that they do not want a CPZ. But Southwark won?t give up. Despite the overwhelming results, they are still suggesting the option of introducing a CPZ (in a diluted format). Why can?t they just conclude that people don?t want it and leave it there? Of the 5 recommendations, none of these were put forward as possibilities in the consultation (except the concept of not having one). Where have they suddenly come from? What really stinks is that it hasn?t once been mentioned that some simple changes to Road layout,bays,etc (without a CPZ) could be made to improve the parking situation. Why weren?t we given that as an option DURING the consultation? Options 3,4, and 5 I read as: ?we?ve just about managed to get some support on a couple of these roads, lets try to get a CPZ in there only?. Again, nobody has been consulted on this. The likely knock on effect would be even worse than the initial proposal, resulting in the forced enlargement of the zone at some point. The thin end of a wedge. This, more than anything, shows how desperate Southwark are to push this through. Are they SEROIUSLY suggesting a a one road CPZ ?? So, despite saying a firm ?no?, there is still the posisiblity of a CPZ still going ahead. The opinion of the Camberwell and Dulwich Community councils carries much weight so it is essential that people attend these meetings to show that they are not prepared to have Southwark override this ovehwhemling opinion. You can still have your say: 7pm 24 January Dulwich Community Council will be held at St Barnabas Church 40 Calton Avenue SE21 7DG and the chair person has agreed to largely hand over - as much as he can - the meeting to discussing the CPZ. 7pm 10 January Camberwell Community Council is proposed to be held at Jessie Duffett Hall, 92 - 94 Wyndham Road, London SE5 0UB. North and east of Grove Vale is covered by CCC, south of Grove Vale by DCC.

Probably not many. But plenty lived on streets who are about to have a parking problem pushed on to them, plenty own businesses that are going to be affected, plenty feel that this scheme won't deliver it's objectives, plenty know what it's like to live under a CPZ regime. And then quite a few who feel that they haven't been consulted with by southwark...... Who seem intent on only listening to those people inside the proposed zone That's all

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "the majority of residents don't want CPZ," > > What? On the streets where it is proposed? You > sure? Can you provide the data you based that > claim on? He probably based it on the 3000 local people who signed a petition against this flawed scheme in a 4 day period. I'm sure he'd have liked to base it on the consultation data, only southwark have refused to share that. Like many people, he's probably upset at the badly designed, revenue raising, sledgehammer being used to crack a nut

Post removed

And, remember, there is no set objective/formula that southwrk use to analyse CPZ consultation data. So you'd expect souhwark to want to be as transparent as possible or THEY'RE going to have to face a judicial review. The media would love that one Local democracy at it's best !!!

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi grisett, > My understanding is the report will have this data > as an appendix. > I asked for this so that the raw data is made > widely available. > I wasn't aware it would overlap your FOI but it > should have the same result. > I've also asked that the report if at all possible > be released before Xmas. Normally it would be > released 7 days before the community council > meeting on 10/1 but hopefully it can be released > nearly a fortnight earlier. > > Overall I think this serves the community better > getting a report out two weeks earleir and making > the raw data available to everyone. James, if what you say comes true then it should give the same result, so thanks for requesting it. However, the response does not say that and nothing would suprise me on this subject.....of course Southwark aren't obliged to include the raw data, whether you've asked for it or not. Lets wait and see then

UNBELIEVABLE It a response from Southwark Council, where they are REFUSING to provide the raw data from the CPZ consultation under a Freedom of Information request. I am absolutely gobsmacked. This shows, the complete lack of transparency of this "consultation" process. It is quite clear that this department of Southwark council have an agenda of introducing CPZ's. Is it, therefore, right that they are the only people allowed to conduct a statistical analysis of this data ? Why, possibly would Southwark council refuse to provide this information to a local resident ? They give an explanation, but it is just nonsense 1) All consultation reports that I have seen to date (such as http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=22397) DO NOT CONTAIN THE RAW DATA. They contain an analysis and summaries of that data, presented in a way that Council officers see fit. This leaves the process open to a "presentation layer" being applied. I asked for the raw responses (obviously anaonomised) so that we could be confident in their process and could perform some alternative analysis. This would stop Southwark pulling tricks like lumping all responses that are not directly within the CPZ into a "outside area" category and then claiming that they have no value because they could come from anywhere 2) There will be little time before the community council meetings for anybody to perform decent analysis of the data. This stinks

It really saddens me, but that is EXACTLY what is happening here. Put simply, this is not a consultation ( as neither were north dulwich CPZ or southampton way), this is a justification exercise for a pre- made decision The over inflated advantages, the selective anslysis of data, their own admission that there us no objective formulas used, their arbitrary ignoring of petitions.....this absolutly stinks Oh, and it all comes down to a decision to be made by one man: cllr Barrie Hargrove. The same man who refused to extend the consultation by 2 days to allow all the 1000's who hadn't been informed to respond. Any councillors reading this: you need to act. Stop sitting in the fence with " the consultation will give us what people want". The consultation looks flawed& biased and verging on corrupt

More happy CPZ stories. This time from the good people of North Dulwich http://www.cpzdulwich.net/ What REALLY worries me are the comments about the way that the data was manipulated in order to build a case in favour. What worries me more, is that it is the same council officer, Paull Gellard, writing a report on OUR area right now

This website provides a useful insight into "life under a CPZ" http://www.barnetcpz.blogspot.com/ For all of those people concerned that they can't park within 100m of their house, have a look at what you're going to have to deal with, you've got it all to come.

and thats why in 2009/10, Southwark raised over ?2Million from parking permits and a total parking revenue of 11 million. The surplus from parking was ?3.4 Million ! (thats after they've paid all of the wardens, removal lorries and other costs) Good business

OK, OK, sorry that some people seem to think that I've accused James Barber as being corrupt. James, I am sorry that some people think that?s what I'm accusing you of, I?m not. I asked you a set of questions, I did not accuse you of anything. I did also ask if you?d got any relationship to the developers, you?ve said no, I completely accept that. James - as I have said many times, I DO respect your work and have admired your input on this forum over the last few years. But, as I have also said numerous times, I do feel that you have been one-sided in your views on this subject whilst maintaining veil of impartiality. I stand by that statement. And sorry that my abstract sarcasm got missed: "I'm not minded to comment on whether you're corrupt, but I never say never" is the same answer I was given by Southwark when asking them to extend the consultation by a week or two (i.e. they wouldn't say "no")......... I won't bother with a smiley face So, for the record, I do not think Cllr Barber is corrupt. I am sorry if people inturpeted my posts in that way Now I?ve calmed down, if everybody else could do the same and go back and read my initial questions from this morning. They are still valid. There has been much discontent expressed here, and in other places, that the actual justifications being given by Southwark for this CPZ just don?t add up and now, we find, that in effect a new local library depends on a CPZ being implemented (I know not directly, but think through the library>development>planning>no parking places>?car free?> CPZ dependency route and it does) And PLEASE don?t all jump on me and accuse me of being a book-burning, library hating car driver. A new library is good. Not knowing it is a factor which should be considered in relation to a CPZ is bad. Also, we have been told numerous times how the consultation was limited due to costs, yet you KNEW that a developer had commited to 20k funding......again, I still find it strange that you failed to mention this. I therefore still find it strange that this hasn?t been mentioned once. This isn?t a personal attack on James Barber, but it is James Barber who has been ?the voice of the council? on this forum and has presented quite clearly in favour of the scheme. He has posted in great detail about the subject but hasn?t once mentioned this development , a development that he has personally come out in favour of, a development that IS intertwined with this CPZ. James has since given an explanation, but I still do find it strange. [edited to say sorry a couple more times]

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > grisett, > You've effectively suggested I was corrupt. You > say you owe me no apology. Does that mean you > think I am corrupt? > If you do then you should report me to Southwark > Council's monitoring officer > deborah.collins@southwark.gov.uk. > If you don't think I'm corrupt you should say so > publicly because at the moment you've made a > public allegation which could affect my employment > now and into the future. James, I'm not minded to comment on whether you're corrupt, but I never say never I think if you anwwered the quesiton below, it would put a lot of peoples minds to rest

garnwba Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > gsirett - why is is James's responsibility to flag > up to you a property development that has been in > the public domain for ages and has also been > discussed on this very forum? I am not suggesting that is his responsibility. I am suggesting that when Cllr Barber has been involved in such detailed debate inlcuding figures (down to the nearest car) that help justify this CPZ, it seems very strange that not once he thought to mention this planned development. > Also now that we have established that the > development company are a) not funding the CPZ and not funding the CPZ......alright, lets get very picky here. They have "commited to a 20k contribution". We've since been told that isn't being used to fund this CPZ consultation directly, but may be used to fund others in the future. So, I guess another development from a few years back is being used to fund this one ? Again - I think people should know this. I think a councillor debating it in such detail should have mentioned this especially seeing that we've been told that consultation funds are limited > b) most probably be against a CPZ Do you honestly think that a property developer would build a free library or pay for a CPZ consultation out of the kindness of their hearts? Of course not, they do it to make their development pallatable to the planners. Another part of making it palattable is to call it a "car free" development, so it meets environmental/traffic requirments. And the only way to make it "car free" is to have a CPZ which can control the parking. Yes, I'm sure the devleoper would rather NOT have a CPZ, like they would rather NOT build a free library > Perhaps you could explain how you feel it would > have a material impact on the data presented when > it hasn't been built yet and the residents will > not be entitled to apply for CPZ permits > > Answer.. it doesn't It absolutly does. We have been presented a lot of data that takes into account the number of homes in the area > Unless of course you think the data should take > into consideration any potential changes to > residential property in the ED are over say the > next 25 years which might have an impact? Cllr Barber has told us quite a few times that furutre considerations ARE being taken into account (such as increased capacity at London Bridge station)

garnwba Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > oh dear... i think someone (few of you) owe Mr > Barber an apology... I don't owe Cllr Barber an aplogy at all. I think I am quite corect in asking him why, after debating in great detail (and generally trying to justify) the introduction of a CPZ he thought it appropriate not to mention ONCE a property development that has a material impact on the data presented and could [by some people] be seen as a contributing factor towards the introduction of a CPZ.

[response to James Barber] Maybe I am badly informed, but maybe not. It is no attempt to smear, I simply find it incredible that you are able to debate a subject in such detail and not mention such an important factor. A factor (whether you "voted for" or "spoke for") that you were clearly aware of James - when we are being told that one of the main objectives of this scheme is to stop c.100 commuters using the area, I think it is absolutely relevant that another 20 homes are about to be built slap in the middle of the area, and that that development basically rests on a CPZ being put in (otherwise the "carfree" element of the development cannot be guarenteed) It's great that we're getting a new library (although I notice in the planning documents, that Southwark reserved the right not to take up the library lease) but is it it down to you to decide whether this devleopment is relevant or not? - clearly you have decided that is not relevant and failed to communicate it You seem very well informed of the precise legal position of the money that a property developer has been asked to contribute towards a CPZ consultation, but have failed to mention this once when telling people how limited funds were for a consultation. And BTW, if we're talking about being misinformed, I have no idea who you're talking about with your comment "For you I understand if the CPZ proceeded you'd be inconvenienced by no longer being able to use a neighbours dropped kerb as effectively privatised public highway for your parking." ............. wrong person. I'm the person who's about to get all of the commuters (and quite a few residents who dont fancy buying a permit) parking down his street which is c.50m from the edge of the proposed scheme. Oh, and hasn't been contacted by the council and thinks that his response to the consultation won't carry very much weight.

James I have taken my answer back onto the CPZ thread http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,772215,793218#msg-793218