gmackenney

Spaces will be lost a number of ways: 1. Junctions will have yellow lines where 'dangerous' parking was previously tolerated. 2. Some bays will not be exclusively for CPZers - e.g. shared use bays and loading bays etc. 3. Where 'advisory' markings exist in front of driveways, these will either have to be replaced with parking bays (losing the use of the off street parking space) or a yellow line (keeping the off street space but losing the 'reserved' space in front of the house).

Those living immediately adjacent to the zone (e.g. me) and those living within the zone are unlikely to commute to it. Are you seriously telling me that if I live on Oglander or Ondine Road that I'm going to get in my car and drive to Tintagel to drop my kids off at school or park in Derwent to pick stuff up from the bakers? A large proportion of contributors to this thread are concerned residents in the immediate area. I accept that there are some (such as yourself) that live nowhere near the affected area. What's is also missing from your commentary is that the overwhelming majority of people within the zone have rejected it. I fully understand that a consultation is not a vote, but it should stand as a reasonable view of public opinion (discounting for a moment the numerous signatures on petitions that have been collected). What is antagonising me in particular (and I suspect others) is that James Barber stated before the consultation result was that the opinion of those within the CPZ zone would carry more weight for him than those outside. Now that the consultation results are in and do not show support for the CPZ, he is trying to make the figures fit his argument - something that I and other antis were accused of earlier in the thread. The fact is that most of those anti CPZ would not have a leg to stand on if the consultation result went the other way - there would be no need to argue - the CPZ goes ahead with the backing of those living there. However, because of the bias shown by the council towards introducing this scheme and the thinly disguised motive of revenue generation, the anti guys are having to put in a disproportionate amount of effort in to get their voice heard versus those pro CPZ - hence the frustration. It shouldn't be like this - the guys in the zone have spoken and have said they don't want it. For Giles - thanks very much for your efforts on this - I listened to your radio interview and was impressed at the eloquent argument you put forward on it.

I take exception to being branded a 'bully' for expressing an opinion. None of my posts have in any way detracted from the right of those for the CPZ to express their opinion. In fact a large proportion of the no camp acknowledge that certain streets in the proposed zone have a parking issue and acknowledge that it's no fun having to park far away from one's house when laden with kids / shopping etc. To the point about rational argument: the only rational assertion in the council's original consultation document is that there is a parking problem. What it didn't do was to explain how acute that problem was and in which streets. There was no clarity on how the proposed design was arrived at. There was a total absence of any 'downsides' other than an acknowledgement that some parking would be displaced. There was no data on how many spaces would be available under the proposed design. There was no information on permit holder take up. In short it was very light on the facts which may be used to drive a rational debate. This thread at the very least has made some of that information more transparent. I live in a street adjacent to the zone. In saying "If you don't want to live in a CPZ that's entirely fair - but that's no justification to prevent other people who DO want to live in a CPZ from doing so." are you suggesting that my opinion should not be considered, when my street may take the parking displacement? My prior post was intended to reflect the real concerns of those immediately adjacent to the zone. I don't believe it is irrational to suggest that © a more acute problem will be created for streets immediately outside the zone: parking will be displaced into streets which are within easy walking distance of the local amenities. Particularly the Oglander Road triangle. (d) a problem will be created in streets which presently don't have a problem: again due to displacement. (e) that CPZ's spread: the Herne Hill CPZ is currently under consultation to grow on the Lambeth side. (f) that the parking problem should not simply be moved onto other streets (g) that those just outside the CPZ don't want to live in one and that the introduction of this CPZ increases the likelihood that they will come under that regime. I will admit that 'fundamentally altering the character of the area' is highly subjective. I would however counter that 'I have a parking problem so something must be done' is an equally subjective view. With respect to my comment about the 'whole area being swallowed by a CPZ', in my conversations with the parking officials at the Grove Vale library open day, they showed me a map of the current CPZ spread of Southwark. Currently we are bordered by a number of CPZs including the Herne Hill and Peckham Rye ones. My view is that it won't be long before the inevitable CPZ spread will cause the whole area to be covered. (It is only my opinion however!). "The council are rightfully trying to prioritise the needs of local residents who should have a say in whether their own residential area gets turned into a parking lot by parasitic commuters and convenience shoppers." Presumably it is OK to prioritise the needs of these residents over those in the immediate vicinity? I'm not a 'parasitic commuter' or 'convenience shopper' since I can walk to the amenities in question and I suspect a large number of those who've expressed a no view are also in that category. Finally, to your point "I don't believe that the council are deliberately trying to ignore the 'no' vote at all." I found out about the proposed CPZ on this thread. I was not 'consulted' in any way. The council have hung up a few notices on lamp posts inside the zone. Whilst the council are now acknowledging the no vote, they have attempted to put in the CPZ 'quietly' and with little transparency. Whilst James Barber and I disagree on this issue, he has at least taken the trouble to engage with local residents - attempts to get other councillors to engage have failed. My local councillors in 'The Lane' ward have completely ignored correspondence on this issue.

Also, I don't think the fact there is a problem is disputed. What's disputed is whether the 'solution' will work.

Over simplified again huguenot. How about © You are convinced that the council (either deliberately or otherwise) will make a more acute problem for those just outside the zone than the problem that currently exists inside the zone. (d) You believe that the CPZ will create problems where none exist today. (e) You are concerned that the CPZ will spread, fundamentally changing the character of the area (f) You don't believe that the parking problems which are suffered by the few streets in the zone which have them should result the whole area being swallowed by a CPZ. (g) Bluntly and quite selfishly, you don't want to live in a CPZ None of the above are any more right or wrong than those for the CPZ. Of course the petition is going to be made up largely of opposition. The opposition the council are conveniently trying to ignore.

I also have only one login and live in a road adjacent to the CPZ! I'm against for the reasons I've stated earlier on this thread.

Hi James, Would you care to share with us the specific numbers you've spoken about in your conversations with council officers to counter gsirett's assertions? Moreover, I fail to see why the petition needs to answer the same questions as the consultation - presumably the consultation survey already does that. Either you're opposed to the CPZ (in which case sign the petition) or you're for it (in which case don't sign). Seems simple enough to me. After all, the consultation document was hardly presenting a balanced case!

I agree. A half baked CPZ (due to budgetary constraints) is even worse than a well thought out CPZ. Frankly I'm against either since I don't think these things solve a problem - they merely shift that problem around. The budgetary constraints thing was also pulled out as an excuse to not consult residents in surrounding streets. Something else I also remembered from the day - one of the parking officers also suggested it might have been more logical to only have the end of Ondine Road closest to Grove Value included in the proposed CPZ. It is interesting that these assertions are coming to light now rather than as input into the CPZ design process! I would not have been able to knock that logic, particularly if it meant that Oglander and Everthorpe were in - this would have led to a design which tied in with the proposed objective of reducing commuter parking. The fact is no design would be perfect, but this design is a long long way away from that! In fact I would say that the design is primarily targeted towards creating a problem for surrounding streets necessitating extension and secondarily towards creating the impression that it is somehow helping people within the zone.

Note also the 'unsafe' spaces that are being used informally today (e.g. parking over driveways). Under the CPZ residents will need to make a choice - add a yellow line (losing the space, but retaining use of their driveway) or add a CPZ space (losing guaranteed access to their driveway). Either way, a parking space is lost and those cars will need to park somewhere (either inside or outside the zone). I also visited the event at GV library yesterday. At the time I was there, quite a lot of heated exchange (not from me!) was taking place, all of it firmly in the against camp. All of the arguments put forward have already been put forward on this forum. I also spent quite a bit of time looking at the detailed data with Paul Gellard. Clearly there are parking pressures in certain streets - that's not disputed. What's being discussed more is whether the CPZ will help those residents. What is clear, however, is that there will be a disproportionately negative effect on certain streets in proximity to the CPZ almost immediately necessitating its extension (e.g. Everthorpe, Oglander etc.) There were a couple of things which came out of my visit yesterday: - The parking team are aware of parking displacement issues, but their only answer in response was that the likely outcome would be residents in affected streets be consulted (i.e. the CPZ would extend). Even from the outset, the guys designing this thing are quite clear that it is going to cause displacement and therefore the CPZ will likely grow if it is established. - They also acknowledge that the design is somewhat illogical with respect to the streets in the V-shaped cutout (Oglander, Everthorpe etc). They would have preferred to include additional streets including Oglander, Everthorpe etc, but the available budget does not allow. - They stated that there isn't huge parking pressure currently in the streets north of Grove Vale. This begs the question why they're included. - It is council policy to introduce CPZs - other's at the event can back up this claim - just in case you're in any doubt as to the council's agenda. I've also noticed something in the data. All of the streets appear to 'lose' residents throughout the day. e.g. Derwent starts with 62 residents, but by 20:30, 10 residents are still missing. That 10 feels somewhat high to me - surely most will be home by that time? It is my feeling that such residents are counted as 'Visitors' when they return. I'm going to be putting this question to Paul Gellard via email.

James As stated earlier - I don't claim to have the answers. Does a lack of alternatives mean that the CPZ is the solution by default? No. The other alternative 'solution' would be to leave things as they are. What we're trying to do here is compare a world with and without a CPZ for all those affected, and not just those inside the CPZ. Fundamentally, is the gain for those in the CPZ worth the pain of those outside? If you're on the council it certainly is as it's a shoe-in that the CPZ will extend. Re East Dulwich Road - what I was trying to point out here is that the council have prioritised road safety over parking capacity - commendable in my view as I certainly appreciate it being easier to walk down that stretch as a pedestrian. However, very little (if any) thought goes into the knock on effects. Why should I believe the council are behaving any differently with regard to the CPZ? As for the cycle detour - please. Irrespective of the way the one way stretch would face, the main part of the East Dulwich Road which runs parallel is not far down. I frequently walk down that stretch of road and rarely see cyclists using it. As for slowing vehicular traffic down, don't other measures such as speed tables work? My point here is that before that change, it was abundantly clear that there would be parking pressure after, and yet the solution chosen does not appear to have taken that into account.