first mate

Gsirett, Good news last night, but I imagine ED councillors may be more favourably inclined to CPZ. I will be attending the Dulwich CC meeting on 24th and I hope other against CPZ will too.

Poor little mite. Did the vet sheck to see if the pup was chipped? You could post on doglost, just in case someone is looking. But well done Colin for taking the time to get this poor dog some help- iot sounds as though she was very distressed and not in great shape.

garnwba, Only I never used the word 'problem' because I do not perceive not being able to park right outside my house every day as a problem. Sometimes it is a minor inconvenience but, as I said, manageable, and infintely preferable to your solution, for all the reasons stated already. Please do not think that I do not sympathise with your plight- I do, but I am completely unconvinced that even 1 hour CPZ, in this case, is going to work or benefit ED long term. Moreover, the fact that James Barber said here that even 1 hour CPZ might not have the "desired affect" persuades me it is not the solution it is being projected as.

fazer71 If one could believe that the sole motivation was to solve the problem on a couple of streets, then you might have a point. I don't think anyone really believes that is the primary or only motivation. As Gsirett says, he swent through the figures with the council officer and net parking will be less.

Garnbwa, I have lived in ED for many years and I have never ever been able to park outside my house on a consistent basis. Often I have to park right at the other end of my road or in the next street, occasionally it is further. But it has never been unmanageable. I would far rather have that than a system over which we will have little control and where the parameters, regulations and fee structure all become an open-ended, moveable council feast and where, ultimately the parking situation is highly unlikely to improve. Even James has said on here that there is no guarantee, that even 1 hour CPZ will have "the desired affect".

fazer71, Eaxctly. There is a lack of trust in the same way you have little if any confidence in the shenanigans to do with your property. If you can bear to, come along to the CC meetings. It is our futures that are being decided by one man who appears to have a rather slim grasp of what a majority means.

fazer1, The purpose is for councillors to give their recommendations and for locals to make their views known, present petitions etc.. Although all of this has already been done at the consultation phase- it does need to be repeated if the majority voice is to be properly taken into account when Councillor Barrie Hargrave reaches his 'key' decision in February. Essentially it is to ensure that the majority of voices that said no to CPZ at the consultation are properly weighed in decision making. As we know, the definition of majority has been shifted of late to seemingly mean the only two streets in the zone that indicated they want some form of CPZ. In others words, within the zone, the majority said no to CPZ but that is being ignored for now, rendering the consultation pretty meaningless. On the other hand a majority on two streets is trumpeted as a fair result and the basis on which CPZ is still being driven through... In Southwark council parlance sometimes a majority means majority and sometimes it does not. Southwark have an investment in ensuring that CPZ is always viewed on a street by street basis because they know that is the only way to get CPZ underway. Remember the consultation shows that the majority in the zone are against CPZ. They also know that even if only two streets have CPZ for one hour that the inevitable displacment will, at some point,(they are playing the long game) result in CPZ creep. Once in place permits go up, one hour CPZ is extended. Parameters can change- they have shown that they will use a minority voice to drive through changes.

fazer71, what a nightmare, your experience suggests something fishy or woeful incompetence. It also suggests that the council is intent on squeezing money out of leaseholders any way they can.

Y, precisely- it is the long game and one hopes that as many people as possible turn up at the community council meeting to try to halt the proposed inception of the 'game'. CPZ was defeated in Bermondsey, it can be stopped in East Dulwich if enough people make their objections known at the Community Council.

See an example of CPZ creep at Ladywell http://brockleycentral.blogspot.com/2011/09/consultation-begins-on-further.html

I hr CPZ is the thin end of the wedge. It opens the door for CPZ to creep and expand.

trizza, Thanks for that fair and balanced analysis of the situation. I think if we had an assurance that the status quo would not really change overall, that the parking situation near the station was improved without a knock on effect on other streets, then we'd be okay with the proposals. However, everything seems to point to the development of CPZ creep and little improvement in parking over time, as well as permit bills that gradually increase too. Even councillors like James Barber, who are on principle probably more for than against CPZ, (apologies James if that is not the case)appear to be saying there are no guarantees, and that introduction of even a limited CPZ scheme may not have the desired effect.

On the 8th November Zak posted: When I visited the exhibition at Southwark libary the Southwark Officer told us that the Bermondsey proposed CPZ was "defeated" by virtue of the number of people who signed petetions opposing it. It seems that if we want to defeat this proposal it''s going to be about mobilising a majority of the people affected -by the way I was told that they would take into account opposition expressed by people outside of the proposed CPZ who feel they would be adversely affected.

James Barber has stated that Councillor Barrie Hargrove will make the decision on CPZ after the various Community Council meetings.

Bobby P, And it will not stop there, of course it won't. It's called the thin end of the wedge- all the council need is a starting point and the thing will snowball and the permit costs will rise and rise- as shown in other boroughs. I still don't understand why the consultation against in Bermondsey was good enough to stop CPZ, but here it is not. Is one area of Southwark treated differently from another?

bil, Quite, and all that monitoring will cost. Penguin68, the idea of community is as freely open to interpretation as is the idea of a consultation and what constitutes a mandate for action by the council. The goal posts move so quickly it is hard to keep up.

James, The whole scenario is wide open, as you say. It may or may not have the'desired' effect and that is what is so perturbing about the whole thing. Plus the notion of 'desired effect' is also a moveable feast/famine.

James, I quote you earlier today: "The proposals for controlled parking are now for 1hour on an experimental basis". When was this decision made and by whom?

In October poster ali had this to say on a personal expereince of introduction of CPZ in Herne Hill I used to live in a flat in Herne Hill - a good 10-15mins walk from Brixton tube station. Lambeth council introduced a CPZ around the tube station, so all the drivers that were parking close to the tube, began parking on roads out of the CPZ that were a 5 min walk from the station So Lambeth council introduced MORE CPZ's,this time on those streets that were a 5 min walk away from the tube. So drivers started parking in the roads that were a 7 minute walk from the station. So Lambeth council introduced MORE CPZ's on the roads that were 7 min walk from the station. So the cars started parking on the roads that were a 10 minute walk from the station.... you see where I'm going with this. Now my flat, a good 10minute+ walk from the station has a CPZ. AND ALL THE ROADS IN BRIXTON HAVE CPZ's. Traffic wardens go up and down all day on their scooters, catching people out and ticketing them. And you cannot park anywhere. It's a totally hostile environment. Furthermore, visitors permits that were once quite reasonably priced, have gotten more and more expensive and I think I'm not wrong in saying that trader parking permits are now ?25+ per day. So when you want the plumber to come fix your boiler, add another ?25 to that bill. While I sympathise with those that have trouble parking outside their houses (I sometimes have this because of the local pub!), the trouble is that if this is introduced, it will gradually roll out until all the streets have CPZ's and none of us will be able to park anywhere except on our small allocated patch of road and we'll all be charged for the privilege. You won't be able to pop along to the Leisure Centre, the post office, a cafe, to the dentist, to the doctor - because unless you live on that street, you won't have a permit. All the streets will have CPZ's eventually. Please say no to this.

In November Councillor and CPZ decision-maker, Barrie Hargrove, ; Thank you for your comments and concerns. I am copying in Tim Walker, our Senior Engineer, who is responsible for collating responses to the consultation. Both Tim and myself are essentially neutral on the outcome of this. As a responsible local authority we do recognise that the ever growing numbers of vehicles on our roads is becoming increasingly unsustainable and that restrictions on commuter parking is one way to combat this. However, our policy is to install Controlled Parking Zones only where residents want them. If the outcome of the consultation is that residents do not think the benefits of a CPZ outweighs the possible disbenefits"

Do the estate agent cars park primarily in the streets around the station?

n a letter on the 17th November Councillor Peter John stated: ?Please be assured that if the objections outweigh support, then a CPZ will not happen?. Perhaps the councillor does not understand the way the process works either.

garnwba, You seem to be saying that the consultation should have little if any bearing on actions taken by the council, in that a majority have clearly said no to CPZ. You may be of the mindset that CPZ's work, the majority is not of the same mindset. I am alarmed by the stance that the consultation is more or less irrelevant. Councillors like James Barber seemed to suggest that the consultation was wholly relevant and would direct the final decision on the matter.

The most important thing is that there is a clear majority vote against CPZ in East Dulwich. Either the consultation is relevant or it is not. If it is not, in your view relevant, then why was it carried out at tax payer expense? Do you accpet the results of the consultation or not?

The issue is East Dulwich, moreover one need look no further than Bermondsey who have also thrown CPZ out, to have a sense of what other communities might feel. Let us focus on East Dulwich and the process here. The majority have said no, that vote against should be honoured or it makes a nonsense of the consultation process on which tax payers money was spent, and where many people went to a lot of effort to make their views known.