first mate

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.

Yes, PeckhamBoy you are right. It does seem as though the council are relying on resident apathy (in reality too busy trying to earn a living and too tired for anything else) to drive this through. The tone from us all is slightly defeatist in that whatever we do it'll happen. This cannot be and I would ask Gisrett and the organisers of the petition, to lead another campaign against this.How can we energise those who signed the petitions against CPZ? Is it worth involving Tessa Jowell- what do others think? Surely she must read these forums? Are the press aware- would a national be interested in locals fighting the council on something like this?

We cannot just let the council impose something on us like this. There must and will be a way to stop it. If the majority of ED want CPZ, then so be it, however, until there is clear evidence for that we must ensure that this process is stopped. There are others on here who have a much clearer sense of process, so what should be the next stage?

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. -------------------- Regards james.barber@southwark.gov.uk 07903 964130 Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich Ward If you read through the last few pages of the thread you will also find names of councillors and emails addy's trying to push CPZ through as well as others with different views. You can email all of them letting them know what you think.

I find it hard to believe that such wholesale criticism of CPZ coexists with a desire for the system to remain in place.

As most have always said, at least James comes on here and replies and gets involved and that is to his credit. Has there been any response from the council with regard to the various petitions?

I do hope local journos are being kept in the loop about all of this.

I'm sure James Barber will tell us all about this and what the financial relationship between the developer and the council is. But, if true, it all sounds a bit stinky.

More than likely due to much greater available off-street parking, and yet HH residents are still objecting to it.

But, would a large skip fit in the spaces proposed and if it does not, how does that work?

Mastershake, What is your evidence that the scheme in HH is working pretty well? If it was working well why would there be such opposition to it?- see my earlier posts. On another note, and not to you MS, what happens, in the case of a CPZ if building work is underway- say you need to hire a skip or take delivery of large building materials that won't fit into your front 'garden'?

garnbwa, The situation in Herne Hill is not a useful model. There is plenty of opposition and plenty who are not happy. This despite the fact that many more house in HH probably have enough room for offstreet parking.

H, You have a point. However, from what I have read and understood, the initial impact is good, but over time the benefits are lost as creep truly takes hold. Anyhow,the points you make are the sort questions we need answering before anything is implemented anywhere, in my view. I haven't done a street survey and so cannot say for sure, but my general impression of Herne Hill is that houses are rather larger than ED on average and possibly more opportunity for offstreet parking, so perhaps HH is not the best comparison. Here's a little comparison chart on another site:http://www.bacchus.org.uk/html/pros_and_cons.html

Or perhaps many more houses in HH have room on their land for offstreet parking? It occurred to me that if CPZ goes through in ED in any big way we may see those who can tarmacing/paving over front gardens to park cars- that is if they can move the myriad bins :)