Bobby P

Hi LalKJ, I'd ask you and anyone who wishes to put in a roadblock the following I suppose: 1) What is the perceived problem that you are hoping to alleviate? I see posted here that a survey found cars doing speeds of 25mph, which surely is not a problem, and if true is indeed somewhat less than I'd expect, despite the borough-wide 20mph limit. (What I normally see, on the contrary, is drivers letting each other by, as there is not really room for two cars to pass in parallel, rather than racing down.) 2) Assuming that cars travelling at 25mph is correct, and assuming people felt they wanted to reduce it, surely the speed people drive along the road is not going to be reduced by putting a road-block near Ashbourne. Why would it? 3) For me (and I might add my two immediate neighbours, also opposed to this) living near the Ashbourne junction, we would expect that - if the road is blocked - that anyone who wishes to drive North to any destination, e.g. residents living further south on Melbourne, will have to turn up Ashbourne onto Lordship Lane. One might expect this to create extra noise outside our front windows as they slow, change down gear and turn, as opposed to travelling by quickly which they currently do, and will mean they all have to access their "points North" via the most congested section of Lordship Lane, turning off Ashbourne. 4) Putting in a barrier presumably would reduce parking space where it is in short supply (and no, we don't want to allow the Council to revive the CPZ rationale we residents so roundly defeated a year or two back). 5) I'm a cyclist, pedestrian and driver, but I would expect - if driving - it would add time and inconvenience to need to go up crowded Lordship, and thence potentially Grove Vale, to reach points north. That's my personal view based on living exactly where I do, but since that particular location is where you are proposing your barrier to go, I'd say we who live closest are the most affected. 6) I just don't see the evidence, in summary, of the problem you are trying to fix. Perhaps I'm missing something, but if I can't see a problem and can I can only see negative effects and inconveniences of the proposed "solution" (more traffic noise near our houses, longer journey times, more congestion pushed into a bottleneck), then why would I want to push for change. Yes Melbourne is a rat run, but one I've been more than happy to live on for the last 12 years, and if I wanted to live in a cul-de-sac, I would have moved to one.

Yes, rch. I live on Melbourne and have done for many years. I don't see any case for a traffic gate blocking the road. The displacement would indeed INCREASE congestion and pollution especiallly for those of us living near the Ashbourne junction, the proposed site of the roadblock. Needless to say, I don't see how this in any way improves quality of life here, and can imagine many ways it reduces it. (A roadblock at Ashbourne won't reduce speeds down the rest of the road, if that is the issue, and there are other ways to do that, without a roadblock. The only accidents on the road I have ever seen, by the way, haven't been the result of speeding, though I acknowledge speeding in general is undesirable). Needless to say, I haven't been consulted, and heard about this from a neighbour (also very against it) but it is a bad idea that I am told has originated from a newcomer on the road who has been very persistent in pushing it forward. It's a free world so I don't blame them, but I shall certainly be opposed to any roadblock.

176 routemaster! Yes, would like that.

I attended the Council meeting, and it was tense and passionate, with deputations both against the CPZ and (in the case of Derwent Grove residents) for it. After the vote, we did indeed hear from the Councillors that Barrie Hargrove had committed to abide by the vote of the two Community Councils. As both Camberwell and Dulwich voted "No", that should indeed be an end to the matter (for now). Assuming no turnarounds, this is indeed a victory for local democracy, thanks in no small part the the extremely hard work by some residents, such as Giles, who - should he ever decide to stand for local councillor himself (!!) would I'm sure find a lot support from grateful residents. One final word: I did feel sorry for the Derwent Grove delegation, who put a passionate case for a CPZ on their road (alone). While I still think this would never work as they hoped, and it is certain that displacement would then move any problem to the neighbouring streets, we were invited tonight to consider other ways to alleviate their parking issues. If commuters ARE the problem on Derwent (though one does wonder why commuters are not a problem on Elsie, who were vehemently against the CPZ), then perhaps rather than a CPZ, the Council could consider simply putting up some "No Commuters" signs on the road, or some similar wording. While I'm not sure such a thing exists, knowing how people fret over "official" signs (and the fact that they may get ticketed/clamped/towed), surely even if it were not policed or enforced, it would in fact deter any actual commuters nervous of retribution. If, as I suspect, the problem is not commuters, but (as on Elsie) the sheer number of residents' and local business' cars, then it would have little effect, but then neither would a CPZ... The other long term suggestion of investigating creating actual paid carparks (Sainsbury's, the Hospital site) should also be looked at. Any commuters that do exist, and some shoppers, would very likely happily pay a small parking fee (if it were not too much) for guaranteed parking rather than driving round congested streets looking for the elusive "free" space, and this might just make that essential modicum of difference to the residents of said streets.

It's really really simple, James. If I have difficulty parking sometimes on my road, and have to park in the next road where there are spaces, it is an inconvenience. Not a massive social problem, an inconvenience to me. But still, no one is paying any extra fees or having anything imposed on them that they don't want. If on the other hand I have difficulty parking on my road and therefore demand the Council give me a personal parking space (or a one-road-only CPZ), I am not solving the problem, I am merely pushing it onto neighbouring streets. A sledgehammer to crack a nut, which creates a new problem for my neighbours that didn't exist before. So surely the least disruptive choice is to live with the fact that I may on occasion have to park where there is space - even on the next road - thus keeping parking free, and meanwhile have the Council look at any sensible options there may be to free up places on my particular road (James, several ideas have been mentioned in posts above, which should be properly researched by the Council - i.e. your Option 2). What is ridiculous, James, is to try and appease a tiny minority on one or two roads (whose only problem is they sometimes have to park next door to where they'd ideally like to be) at the expense of the vast majority of residents who do not want a CPZ.

I'd join with others in saying that while I thoroughly disagree with James' pro-CPZ views and I fear none of his arguments for its introduction hold water based on the evidence, statistics, numbers and resident experiences, I do appreciate his engagement and would not make this a personal issue. While I think he could be a little more forthright about his political agenda on CPZs (which he naturally has and should not be ashamed of), I am all for robust debate and I think the vast majority of his constituents have not been shy in making their anti-CPZ views clear. I do hope he and the other Councillors heed this massive swell of opinion, but clearly if they don't and follow another agenda, then in a democracy there is usually a swift and fierce electoral penalty to pay. I don't think James will have any problem on the vast majority of his doorsteps if he shows that he is a reasoned individual who hears the arguments, takes them on board and votes with the evidence - which is utterly stacked against Southwark's ridiculous proposal.

fazer71 "I?m happy to pay ?125 a year and if there is still not enough parking I?d pay ?250 or ?400 a year". Glad to hear that sounds like a bargain to you. I don't think most will agree.

I certainly cycle mostly, but have to have a car for work and transporting quite large amounts of equipment (or people) around. But personal transport preference is the bike. I still don't want to be penalised further for parking on my road.

Yes, Chevalier, the same happened to me (and my neighbours) several times under my former station-proxy CPZ. My experience was usually when the car was parked three roads away (parking not having improved at all after the CPZ was introduced) and I mistakenly didn't go and check on it for a couple of days, or (worse sin, still) dared to have a week's holiday abroad, leaving my newly-permitted car on the street, in which time the bay had been "suspended". Pound, massive fine, letter-writing epic, appeal, eventual refund. Great fun. I really fail to see how anyone in their right mind can want this.

James - I need a car for my work, or I would not get any. You must understand that not everyone shares your circumstances or politics. It's patently stupid to pretend that everyone can live without a car - that utopia is a long way away. In the real world, we need to earn a living, and the freedom of a car does enable some of us to stay solvent.

But we really don't want a "complete CPZ system", fazer71, as we don't wish to pay for it in cash and stress. Freeing up badly used space on the roads I would be in favour of. Introducing a CPZ throughout the entire area is a sledgehammer to crack a nut at best, and in my experience totally ineffective at dealing with the ultimate issue (which is residents' cars are beginning to fill the streets to capacity - though we're not quite there yet, as we can indeed all still park our cars - for free - albeit sometimes on neighbouring roads.)

The facts are: CPZ moves any parking problem to neighbouring roads. Indisputable, especially since take-up of permits by residents is always so low. Those (myself included) who have seen similar CPZ's brought in where they live (on a very congested residential road right by a station), have seen no improvement in parking, but had extra expense in permit and visitor permits we could nary afford, plus endless hassle with wrongly issued tickets on our cars (always eventually challenged and rescinded). Southwark's figures show they expect 64% of the revenue to come from parking tickets. These will be tickets issued to residents (during bay suspensions etc. or for other "disputable" infringements), not just to "commuters". In what way does that improve the lives of residents or anyone else? Please believe those of us who've had this experience, and hoped it would solve our parking issues - it really didn't - and the proposed zone is certainly very similar to the one I lived in. Those of us strongly opposed are not trying to make anyone's live worse, merely to point out that CPZ is not the panacea some people wish it were. And living under one is a very unpleasant experience which affects everyone's quality of life. This needs to be fought tooth and nail for the Dulwich area at the meeting on 24th. Option 1 or 2 are the only viable ones.

CPZ COMMUNITY COUNCIL MEETING TIME TODAY!!!! The all-important Community Council meeting time reposted. First meeting is TODAY - the 10th January. Please if you have a strong view against the CPZ, you really need to attend and make this view heard. This meeting (and its sister meeting on 24th) is likely the LAST CHANCE for the Council to hear the opinions of the majority opposed to a CPZ before they make their decision to proceed with it. The signs from my latest correspondence with them over the last 24 hours is that they they are still minded to put in at least a time restricted CPZ.... So... 7pm - 10th January Camberwell Community Council - Jessie Duffett Hall, 92 - 94 Wyndham Road, London SE5 0UB. Also, don't forget the other vital meeting to attend.... 7pm 24 January Dulwich Community Council - St Barnabas Church 40 Calton Avenue SE21 7DG

MEETING TIMES TODAY!!!! The all-important community meeting times reposted. First is TODAY - the 10th January. Please if you have a strong view against the CPZ, you really need to attend and make this view heard. This meeting (and its sister meeting on 24th) is likely the LAST CHANCE for the Council to hear the strong views of the majority before they make their decision about putting in the CPZ. So... 7pm - 10th January Camberwell Community Council - Jessie Duffett Hall, 92 - 94 Wyndham Road, London SE5 0UB. Also, don't forget the other vital meeting to attend.... 7pm 24 January Dulwich Community Council - St Barnabas Church 40 Calton Avenue SE21 7DG

Even one hour a day will never be cheap. It still means that residents who want to avoid paying for it will park on the next free street, thus moving any problem there. And gradually the CPZ spreads to everywhere. Nor does it prevent the extra costs to residents of visiting workmen permits etc. CPZ really IS a horrendously hostile environment to live in, stressful and nasty (not to mention very expensive). Just listen to those of us who've had the experience. If that is what residents really want, then I can only assume gross ignorance or extreme masochism.

Giles was indeed very succinct and clear in his short radio interview - it's not easy to get points across well in the time allowed, but he did a very good job. Mr Hargrove on the other hand obfuscated and stumbled in his responses, perhaps unsurprisingly as he was trying to defend the indefensible. We must all make sure to turn out at the Community Council meetings on 10th Jan and 24th Jan (details in first mate's post above), as well as writing again to Councillor Hargrove, local MP etc. to demand they heed the results of their own consultation and drop the CPZ altogether.

I think for residents this is now a matter of selfishness against considering the greater good. Would it not be unfair for a very small number of residents on one or two hard-to-park-on streets to be granted a CPZ, which (by its limited nature) directly affects the parking of the neighbouring streets, who have voted against having a CPZ? That of course is exactly the reason the Council is prepared to suggest a one or two street CPZ - because they know that the next-door streets will thence be parked up more heavily by people from the CPZ streets (who don't want to pay for the permit), and know that in due course the neighbouring streets will likely vote for a CPZ to ease the newly caused congestion which today they find liveable with. A one or two street CPZ is inherently a "selfish" option: anyone who seriously wants this on their street is effectively saying "to hell with my neighbours on the next street, I don't care how it affects them, as long as I can park directly outside my house". It may be that the one street CPZ allows them to park more easily for a while, by moving any non-paying traffic to the next door street, but in time the CPZ will have to grow to accommodate the new parking problems they've deliberately and selfishly caused on their neighbours' streets. And so parking will end up as bad as ever for everyone, including the original CPZers, but will be costing everyone ?125+ a year - no gain for any resident, only to Council coffers. Anyone who insists on a limited CPZ in their street seems to me by definition to be selfish (i.e. not considering the consequences for their neighbours, or considering them less important than their own needs). Surely any good and fair Council should be weighing heavily the needs of the many against the wishes of the few.

I think for residents this is now a matter of selfishness against considering the greater good. Would it not be unfair for a very small number of residents on one or two hard-to-park-on streets to be granted a CPZ, which (by its limited nature) directly affects the parking of the neighbouring streets, who have voted against having a CPZ? That of course is exactly the reason the Council is prepared to suggest a one or two street CPZ - because they know that the next-door streets will thence be parked up more heavily by people from the CPZ streets (who don't want to pay for the permit), and know that in due course the neighbouring streets will likely vote for a CPZ to ease the newly caused congestion which today they find liveable with. A one or two street CPZ is inherently a "selfish" option: anyone who seriously wants this on their street is effectively saying "to hell with my neighbours on the next street, I don't care how it affects them, as long as I can park directly outside my house". It may be that the one street CPZ allows them to park more easily for a while, by moving any non-paying traffic to the next door street, but in time the CPZ will have to grow to accommodate the new parking problems they've deliberately and selfishly caused on their neighbours' streets. And so parking will end up as bad as ever for everyone, including the original CPZers, but will be costing everyone ?125+ a year - no gain for any resident, only to Council coffers. Anyone who insists on a limited CPZ in their street seems to me by definition to be selfish (i.e. not considering the consequences for their neighbours, or considering them less important than their own needs). Surely any good and fair Council should be weighing heavily the needs of the many against the wishes of the few.

Apparently (according to the other thread) a Southwark Council representative was on BBC Radio London today discussing the CPZ and defending their right to implement one based on the result of the Consultation - i.e. showing what we've basically known all along, that they intend to impose this in the face of all the public opposition.

The consultation delivered a clear democratic majority against the proposal for a CPZ in the area we were all consulted on. That should be the end of the matter. There should be no CPZ of any kind imposed. No other position on this is tenable.

Yes, James, your spin on the numbers is clearly not correct - voters' opinions are so plain to see in the Consultation: it is ridiculous to pretend otherwise. I think first mate's posts are correct. The majority have spoken clearly on this issue. It is highly undemocratic for you to ignore the results of a Consultation that your voters spent their time filling out so as to make their voice heard. You really are acting irresponsibly to wilfully misrepresent the results (a strong majority against the CPZ, both from within and without the proposed zoned area). James, is it not time to admit your agenda has been democratically defeated and that you now going to drop your support for the CPZ proposal?

Opposers should attend EN MASSE the Council hearings, first of which is on the 10th Jan. That way they will hear the opposition loud and clear. James Barber is now apparently suggesting that the Consultation (a resounding majority against) will have little actual weight with these people unless we literally shout it in their faces, so I guess that is what we must do. How gauche. Yes, we did think our work was done and our views made clear, but it appears Southwark is not listening.

Well, we're not off the hook yet, but this has the potential of being a nice Xmas present, or at least (in rugby terms) a try that then needs to be converted at the Community Council meetings: there, Southwark should be told in no uncertain terms that the people have spoken clearly in this consultation, and that no CPZ of any sort should be implemented. Merry Christmas!

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.

> On Melbourne grove at the moment we have parking > restriction signs up (as the council haven't > removed them yet despite the parking restrictions > having ended ages ago) - this has meant that > commuters have not parked on the street whilst us > canny residents in the know have... parking has > been blissful, easy and perhaps a real insight > into what living in a CPZ would be like. ...yes, thereby clogging up Derwent, Elsie etc. more than usual. It has a knock on effect, you see, which is why a CPZ won't help - unless it incorporates the whole of ED. And I personally think that would be a great shame.