first mate

Penguin68, I am sure that James will not drag this out until the last minute because that would look too much like playing politics with what is, clearly, an extremely important issue to so many in the area. Or am I being horribly naive? I still do not understand what piece of information is suddenly going to appear in late January that prompts Mr Barber to make his mind up. After all, he is on the transport scrutiny group, so is probably better informed on all fo this than many other councillors.

Loz, Excellent point. The case against keeps stacking up. I just wish James would come on and let us know where he stands, I'm having difficulty understanding exactly what it is he needs to figure out at this juncture- what is it that is holding him back, or to put it another way, who or what has such a hold over him that he cannot make his mind up?

James I too would like to know what you have decided with regard to CPZ, as I am sure would many others. You will be attending the Community Council in a position of influence and it is reasonable to ask how you will choose to use that influence? You have had sight of the consultation results and know the detail,you have spoken to residents and followed the debate on the forum. What else do you need to know before you decide on your recommendations? It is beginning to feel as though the Southwark consultation, which shows a majority against CPZ, is irrelevant in helping you to reach your conclusions.

James, I think if you are scraping around for figures like this then to 'believe' is not enough, you need to know as a fact that three of the 'no's counted on Melbourne Grove were communters. Is this the case?

James, No-one is attempting to browbeat you but you are in a position of some influence on this matter in that you, not we, can write reccomendations, and, as such, I think we have some right to know what your thoughts are. It would be helpful to hear from you what is holding you back from making a decision on this? Is there an aspect that requires clarification? Are there factors we are not aware of? What, for you, is the territory that is unclear? I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask you this.

We have to ask why, if the various local petitions defeated introduction of CPZ in Bermondsy, we would be tretaed differently...on what grounds? I too feel that James should do the decent thing and declare his intentions, the more he procrastinates the less credible he seems. If he is any indication of the way other councillors choose to behave on this, then lord help us. In terms of the community council I would imagine that the 20 people, from various streets, in favour will be implored to appear. This means that we need to mobilize as many heads as possible from the same and surrounding streets to also appear- but we need more than 20.

Actually, I do believe that we should perhaps reserve our ire for Councillor Hargreaves. After all, it sounds as though he is the one who will decide, and how visible and accountable has he been in all of this? I have little doubt that this whole process has been overseen by him and it is perhaps to him that we should be turning our attention? For all we know James is being used to draw fire on here so that people do not bother to turn up at the Community Councils. I have little doubt that 'process' is going to be used to the nth degree to try to get the result the council want. I suspect projected revenue from the CPZ already features in council spending projections.

I am hoping that James will now tell us which way he is going to vote/recommend? Gsirett will you and the other amazing people that sorted out the petition be resubmitting at the community councils. Is there a lawyer out there who would be prepared to represent the majority voice of ED on the matter of CPZ and make that voice heard at the community council?

On the 6th November Zak posted this: I should add that this person, having spoken to councillors, came away clearly of the view that a majority voice would carry the day. Politicians need to remember, this is not a 'game', people have already gone to considerable lengths to make their views known and to participate in what we have been assured is a transparent and democratic process. Was Zak misled? News from the Exhibition at Grove Vale Library. We went to the exhibition today and had the chance to talk to three officers, all of whom are wedded to the idea of "needing to manage kerb space" in the Borough. There were a couple of things that they had to say, that forum readers will find interesting: * When quizzed about exactly why Southwark have intitiated this particular consultation about bringing in a CPZ, they explained that it was as a result of the number of people who had been in touh with the council about parking problems. When pressed on how many people that was, we were told it was around 50 over a period of 3 or 4 years! So few - and they didn't even seem to know if they were all diferent people! So you now know that it's nothing to do with their looking for an opportunity to generate a new source of revenue! * They went on to explain that if enough people were to object to the proposal,then it wouldn't be implemented. They cited a recent consultation in Bermondsey where they'd had a petition against the CPZ with over 1,000 signatures and they subsequently abandoned the planned CPZ So above all. if you don't want a CPZ then it seems that one fruitful strategy is to ensure that there are as many people objecting to it as possible - and it shouldn't be left up to Southwark keep count of the objections! There needs to be an independent public record. Elsewhere there's a post listing the roads where a petition is going round. Those of us who object, need to make sure that all affected roads are covered and that the signed petitions are centrally collated. If you think your road isn't covered then Email the person ( scroll up) who is co-ordinating it. Petitions often don't seem to work, but it seems that this is one situation in which they might.

Well James, are you for or against CPZ on those streets. You have read the consultation, you have heard from residents, you have read this forum, you have had plenty of time to think, what will you be reommending?

P68, yes in this reagrd it is beginning to feel like stalinist Southwark. The problem is, and the council knows, many people may not have time to attend a community council meeting, they are too busy trying to stay in work. Again, I would question the legality of what they are apparently trying to do. By taking it to CC they seem to be able to open the thing right up again and, as you say, ask the same quaetions all over again in the hope they get the result they want. It makes the consultation look like a massive piece of window dressing and a waste of time and money. Perhaps James can tell us, for want of any other councillor, exactly who at these meetings is meant to represent the majority voice against CPZ? It sounds as though councillors, who make the recommendations, will represent themselves and be empowered to push their personal agendas, rather than the majority view of those who elected them. How can that be? It also sounds as though we " the little people wot know nuffink" must take the time to go and plead our case at the court of the big man, who alresdy knows what we think, but may or may not choose to listen on the day. We seem to be advised that only if enough of us turn up might he be persuaded to take notice. So if enough of us (and we don't know how many is needed) do not turn up, it will be concluded that the ED public support CPZ. Makes you want to scream.

James, to be clear, when and how is the final decision made and on what basis? It is beginning to sound as though the consulation is not that relevant. You make it sound as though inspite of the results of the consultation and the various petitions, all sent to Southwark council and therefore available for all councillors to see, that the real process begins at community councils where councillors need somehow to be persuaded all over again that CPZ is not wanted. And, you seem to suggest, that in some way councillors could still, in their wisdom decide to go ahead with CPZ. Is this correct? I am sure I cannot be the only one that finds the process rather confusing.

It does appear to be one huge circular exercise where results already known are going to be presented, again, for debate- although my understanding of the consultation was that it would be fairly conclusive in itself. If the results are already known and a majority view is clear, what, I would like to know, is the purpose of the debate?

James, but why, when the council has already received extensive petitions is it now asking for more? It feels as though we are back to square one. What was the purpose of the consultation then? Can the petitions already submitted be re-submitted here? If not why not?

I would add that if the decision rests with the community council, voted on by an assortment of councillors each 'interpreting' the results of the 'consultation' in the way that suits them (as we have seen some councillors doing on this forum), or, as you suggest, choosing abstention/political expediency- then what on earth was the point of consulting with any of the public in the first place?

gsirett, can we post up here again when the relevant meetings are? Will write, as you suggest.

eddie, Can members of the public attend as a show of hands against? Also how can we ensure proper scrutiny of the meeting and accompanying process? What you suggest has an awful ring of truth about it. I wonder if the council have counted on an income stream from imposition of CPZ to such an extent that they cannot afford to see it jettisoned? It is almost certain that every trick, every twist and turn, will be used to try to drive CPZ through.

P68 wrote, As Bertold Brecht wrote (almost) "if the people vote the wrong way, "Change the people." in a nutshell and very scary!

As I recall, one of the few in favour of CPZ on this forum said it was because they could not park outside their house to unload shopping and that they often had to park in another street- I believe having children was an additional factor. Most of us against CPZ accept that it is unlikely we can regularly park outside our house and now and then we might have to park on another street, but, as you suggest, that is hardly a great hardship as most of us have legs and arms. The disabled have always had the right to a special parking bay. This setup seems to have worked well for many years as suggested by the majority gainst CPZ.

James, now you are going to use the I am standing up for a minority line. It is apparent that you are absolutely set on one course and one way or another you will get your way. It is pretty depressing really. It feels like engaging with someone who is determined to convince you that the moon is made of cheese, despite very clear evidence that it is not. How can you simply sweep aside the overwhelming majority that have shown you they do not want CPZ? What would it take to convince you? I'm beginning to think that even if only one person wanted it, that for you would be sufficient reason to embark on some trial CPZ,s. This does not feel like a democratic process. The arrogance of those behind the process is breathtaking.

She may just adapt to living inside and overall that might be least stressful for her- some cats can happily live indoors. Cats are intensely territorial and it will be hard to persuade the bully cat to stay off your cat's turf. Is she able and happy to use the litter tray?

gsirett, I think it is clear that the councillors driving this through have a process that has worked for them before and on that basis they will stick to it. Their process presents the illusion of consultation and so long as they can get away with the illusion they will carry on. These guys are set on a course of action and I really do think that our appeals to 'listen' or 'think again' are pointless. Some councillors may want CPZ as a money -making exercise, others because they are anti car, others because they really believe it is for the better, but all of them must know in their bones that the process is weighted- in that sense it does feel slightly machiavellian. The only hope is to challenge the process in law and to see if it stands up to scrutiny- so what we need is a lawyer prepared to take this on.

You illustrate the suspicion that many have about the process- where the 'listening' council is, in reality, not listening at all, but has an agenda it is determined to see through, come what may. Earlier in the thread someone mentioned that it might be possible to challenge the lawfulness of the process in this case. Does anyone have a clear idea how this might be done?

Yes google bow wow miaow- her name is Lisa Marks.

james, many thanks for all of that. I'm interested to know where petitions come into all of this. Are they factored into the report? Will they be presented and discussed at the Community Councils? If the petition is not factored into the officer report, I would ask why not? What is key for those against is to be clear about how to use to process to ensure our voices are heard and properly taken account of. Those council members in favour have an advantage in that they know the process inside out and can use this to block voices against CPZ, in this case. I'm sure you appreciate the distinction between 'hearing' and taking account of. Voices may be heard but go unacknowledged and this is my fear- that the substantial numbers against in the local petitions will be rejected on the basis of process detail.