jamesmcash

Dear all The interim report on the proposed East Dulwich controlled parking zone (CPZ) is now available on the project page here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/parking-projects/east-dulwich-parking-study-and-healthier-streets-consultation Or direct link here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/9190/East%20Dulwich%20parking%20consultation%20-%20Interim%20report%20(final).pdf The report in context of the overall process This is an interim report. It is written by council officers, on the basis of the consultation responses. It is published to that local people can discuss its recommendations and make comments. The next meeting of Dulwich Community Council (2.30pm 27th April - Dulwich Library) will discuss the matter and issue its own recommendation before Cllr Livingstone - the cabinet member responsible for this area of work - makes a final decision. Everyone is welcome at the Dulwich Community Council so do come along to discuss it. The consultation responses The report itself highlights the high turnout in the consultation: 37%, which is a council record. It then goes onto summarise the results and make some recommendations. The headline result is that, as expected, the majority of respondents living in the Northwest of the consultation area (around the station and hospital) support there being a CPZ, whereas the majority living elsewhere in the area oppose it. The officer recommendations I have made it clear from the beginning of this process that there are only three possible outcomes on the table. I summarised these back in January as such: - Outright rejection of the proposal on the grounds of majority opposition. This was the case with the last East Dulwich consultation in 2012. - Outright implementation of the proposal following majority support. This has happened in a number of places for instance Thorburn Square. - Partial implementation of the proposal in a contiguous sub-area where the proposal was supported. This happened in Herne Hill. The officer recommendation is consistent with this: it proposes that a CPZ be implemented in a subsection of the area where there is 54% support for one. This area comprises the following roads: Grove Vale, Railway Rise, Melbourne Grove, Jarvis Road, Derwent Grove, Elsie Road, Tintagel Crescent, Zenoria Street, Oxonian Street, East Dulwich Grove, Tell Grove, Matham Grove, Glengarry Road, Trossachs Road, Tarbert Road, Thorncombe Road, the East Dulwich Grove estate, Ashbourne Grove, Chesterfield Grove, Bassano Street and Blackwater Street. The rest of the consultation area - which includes the majority of the streets consulted - would not have a CPZ implemented under the officer recommendation. For me, one of the key aspects to the decision is regarding the impact on local schools. The officer recommendation would mean that the schools which support a CPZ would be in one, and those which do not would not. As I noted above, the officer recommendation is consistent with the pledge I have made on here: it would only implement a CPZ in the subsection of the area which supports one. Nonetheless, I have discussed this with fellow councillors and we think there are still some aspects to the plan which merit further discussion. Two spring to mind immediately. Question 1: size of the zone Any Controlled Parking Zone needs to have boundaries which make sense. The officer recommendation is for a zone which is bound to the north by Grove Vale, to the west by the railway line, and to the east by Lordship Lane. These boundaries seem relatively simple and straightforward to me. However, the boundary to the south seems more arbitrary. Ashbourne Grove, Chesterfield Grove, Bassano Street and Blackwater Street are included whilst Lytcott Grove, Playfield Crescent and Colwell Road are excluded. I suspect that were the latter roads to be included then the zone would no longer have a majority in support of a CPZ so it makes sense to exclude them, but I think there is a question over whether the former four streets should be included. If the objective is to create the biggest possible CPZ whilst still maintaining a majority for it, then it makes sense to include them. But if the objective is to find a zone which pleases the maximum number of people then removing the four streets would mean that a greater number of people are living under an outcome that they supported. None of these streets returned a majority in favour of the CPZ. The same logic applies to removing the southern section of Melbourne Grove (south of East Dulwich Grove) Moreover, I suspect that these streets are rarely used for commuter parking at the station, but often used by shoppers visiting Lordship Lane. So removing these streets might further alleviate any concerns regarding the impact on local traders. The streets left remaining in the proposed CPZ are not generally used by shoppers. What do you think? If a CPZ goes ahead with the proposed area, should Melbourne Grove south, Ashbourne Grove, Chesterfield Grove, Bassano Street and Blackwater Street be included? Question 2: Hours of operation Of those living within the officer?s proposed area, 44% want the CPZ to be operational all day (8.30am to 6.30pm), compared to 27% for two hour controls and 18% for ?Other?. This makes it the most popular option of the three. However, I assume that those who selected ?Other? want the zone to be operational for either less than 2 hours per day, or for more than 2 hours but less than all day. I doubt that those selecting ?Other? were doing so because they wanted the zone to be operational throughout the night. If this assumption holds then it means that, while 8.30am-6.30pm is the most popular option of the three, the majority of respondents in this area would prefer it to be shorter. What do you think? If a CPZ goes ahead with the proposed area, either with or without the streets mentioned in Question 1, should it be operational from 8.30am to 6.30pm or for a shorter period of time? Question 3: Other comments The two questions above were just the ones which jumped out at us. But if anyone has any further comments it would be great to hear them too. That said, I do not think it is worth rehashing the arguments for and against a CPZ in general. I know that there are strong opinions on both sides of the debate, and finding these out was the purpose of the consultation. For me at least, the question now is how to use the information we have to decide an outcome that best meets the conflicting views and concerns of different people in the area. Best wishes, James

Dear all Sporthuntor- Perhaps you are right. I speak to a lot of people thought and while there are definitely criticisms - which I try to address through my casework - I think generally people do not feel as negatively as you might think on this forum. Singalto - I think that this says more about the high level of community engagement from people on this Forum - which should of course be applauded! - than it does about the council. I used the word ?colourful? because these are neither taxes nor introduced by stealth. Two of them are actually still in consultation, and the other has yet to be introduced. Penguin68 - Let me look into this for you. Best wishes James

Dear TheArtfulDogger and Penguin68 Thanks for following up and clarifying what you meant TheArtfulDogger. I?m relieved to hear that you don?t have no confidence in me after all, even if you do think I?m ?spineless?. Penguin68 has answered this question better than I ever could. If residents have criticisms of how the council is run then they should hold their elected councillors, not council officers, accountable. In the case where council officers are acting improperly then this can be dealt with through the appropriate procedures in the council. But, in my experience, the criticisms that people have of the council are generally regarding the political decisions taken by elected councillors. In this case, TheArtfulDogger, I assumed that your colourful phrase ?stealth taxes? referred to the new charge for garden waste, and the proposals regarding the CPZ and parking charges in local parks. These are all example of decisions were either taken by elected councillors or which will be taken by elected councillors following consultation. I apologise if I assumed wrongly in this case. Best wishes James

Dear Claire Thanks for raising this issue. I agree that we are very fortunate in East Dulwich to have such a thriving high street of independent traders. I wouldn?t want to see these replaced with either closed shop fronts or identikit corporate chains, many of whom scarcely contributing taxes. Unfortunately the three issues you identify are out of the council?s control: business rates are set by local government; the council has no regulatory powers over commercial rents; and the council?s planning powers do not allow it to prevent chains moving in. Nonetheless there are some things that we can do to improve the situation. For instance, the council has put some money into a fund called the High Street Challenge. A group of local traders formed the East Dulwich Action Group to apply for and then spend this money. This has led to the mural outside the train station and the photographic banners on and around Lordship Lane. The goal is to make it more pleasant to shop in the area, and to give East Dulwich a clearer identity. We are now looking at putting some similar things in place along North Cross Road, where the Saturday market is also expanding. In addition, there are some buildings which the council owns and therefore have more influence over. One of these is the old mental health unit on Lordship Lane near Goose Green Park. We are looking at using this space to further support local businesses and community ventures. That?s a taste of some of the things we are doing but I?m sure there is more we can do. If you have any suggestions then please let me know. Best wishes James

Dear Claire Sorry I just realised I missed your question. I will respond later. Best wishes James

Hi all Thanks for your questions TheArtfulDogger. Your first question is a pretty big one and essentially encompasses everything I do as a councillor. I cannot cover everything I do to represent people but here's some examples: - I carry out casework on behalf of local people. Some of this is relatively minor and simple but other examples are more serious, for example regarding housing, benefits or social care. You read the statistics but it is nonetheless incredibly shocking how hard life is in austerity Britain for many people. I have, for instance, had to arrange for food deliveries for people who otherwise would not be able to eat, thanks to mistakes and errors taken by the Department for Work and Pensions leaving then without the payments to which they are entitled. - I work with community groups and local institutions to improve the local area. As a primary school teacher myself I have taken an active interest in working with the four state primary schools in the ward, having met with all of them and worked with them on their concerns. For instance, I recently arranged for two schools to have parking enforcement cameras put outside their entrances to make these roads safer for the children. I have also supported schools with their work on air quality. - Alongside my fellow councillors I allocate council funding to projects around the ward. I am currently working with residents near the train station to install some new lights in an area where has been incidents of property damage and fly tipping. We also allocated funding to install new benches in the ward, on Cllr Charlie Smith's suggestion. These are just two small examples from a long list. - I sit on the Southwark Council Planning Committee where I ensure that major new developments in Southwark meet our planning policies in terms of design, environment and social housing amongst other issues. - I ensure that the views of local people are taken seriously when new projects are proposed. At the moment the biggest of these by far is the proposed CPZ, and I have made my views on this very clear: it should only be implemented in an area where residents want it. Another current project is the building of new council homes on Bassano Street. I was there for the recent drop in session to hear the views of local residents and ensure that they are properly considered. - I play a part in shaping council-wide policy through my involvement in the Southwark Labour Group of councillors. I played a major role in changing the council's policy on the use of Embedded Immigration Officers from the Home Office. I believe that these create a hostile environment for migrants living in Southwark so I am pleased that we no longer have them in Southwark. These are just a few examples of the work I do to represent people: I do a lot more. I would of course love to do even more but being a councillor is not a full time job: I have my class at school to teach, and a number of other commitments outside of both work and the council. I hope that this begins to answer your question though. Regarding a no confidence, Penguin68 is right that the best way to show that you do not support the current Labour administration is to vote for other parties at the next election in 2022. In the meantime, you could perhaps organise a petition to express your views. While I do not agree with you on this matter, I would nonetheless be happy to ensure that such a petition - were it to receive significant numbers - be considered at council assembly. However, I speak to residents in Goose Green and across the borough constantly and in general I do not think that many people share your view. People definitely have their criticisms but I think that most people appreciate that central government cuts force local councils to make difficult decisions and that, by and large, Southwark Council is pretty well-run under Labour. You are, of course, welcome to prove me wrong! Best wishes, James

Hi all In the next few days we should have the officer's interim report. This will include a recommentation from the officer regarding implementation: whether to implement and, if so, the area it should cover and the details for implementation. The Dulwich Community Council on the 27th April will then discuss it and make its own recommendation before Cllr Richard Livingstone, the cabinet member with this brief, makes a decision. Best wishes James

Hi wodey If you're a Goose Green resident and you think I can help at all then do drop me an email and I'll do what I can. If you're not in Goose Green then I've no doubt that the councillor in your ward will do the same. (Find out here: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgFindMember.aspx?) Best wishes James

Hi all To echo James Barber?s helpful advice, do feel free to get in contact with me if you are a Goose Green resident and you want me to chase anything up. Email is best: [email protected] Best wishes James

Dear Rebs_ED I don?t think there are any plans to change this. If you have issues once the charge comes in then please let me know. Best wishes James

Hi all The garden waste charge collection will be introduced from 3 June, not April. There will be communication to everyone in properties with kerbside collection this week, and an FAQ section will be put on the council website this month to better explain the new system. In the meantime, let me cover a few key points: - Food waste collection will remain free. The council is buying new food waste containted to ensure that people still have this service. - The service will be charged per financial year. This means that the 2019/20 charge will be reduced pro rata to ?25 for the first year. - You can still take garden waste to the Devon Street recycling centre for free. - Adhesive stickers will be sent to those who have paid in June. After a grace period, the council will remove brown bins without stickers. Siduhe - do you mean the bags you can buy for ?10 for 20? They will go up to ?15 but I think that's the only change. Best wishes James

Hi talfourdite Thanks, that?s very kind of you. I?d be happy to help wit the charging points issue. There?s an ongoing programme to roll out charging points across the borough, prioritising places where there is already a stated desire for one. Drop me an email with your address and I?ll see if I can get you put up the waiting list. Regarding the CPZ issue, I?m happy to look into this if the CPZ is indeed implemented. Contrary to what has been said in some places, it is far from being a done deal. Best wishes James

Dear TheArtfulDogger Yes, they are being removed to encourage crossing at the new raised junctions. Best wishes James

Hi all I am one of your Labour Councillors, for Goose Green in East Dulwich. I am more than happy to do what I can to answer any questions you have, or to help with any issues you have with the council. If you have a negative experience getting support from the council then do let me know and I will do what I can to rectify it. My contact details are below. Best wishes James

Dear all I hope you are all having a pleasant week. TheArtfulDogger - There are two key changes to the implementation of the Southwark Spine, which derived from the consultation responses. The first is the retention of a small number of parking spaces which were previously earmarked for removal, and the addition of three sinusoidal speed humps on Adys Road. The second is the introduction (subject to TfL approval) of a cycle early release. This is an additional phase in traffic lighting to allow cyclists to have a head start over the vehicles behind them. As I said before, this consultation predates my time on the council so I was not directly involved in it. Gerry - Yes I am familiar with the proposals. There is a drop-in event on 9th April between 4pm and 7pm at Dulwich Library which I am attending. If you have specific points to raise then please do drop me an email at [email protected] slarti b - Let me get back to you. kiera - As I am sure you are aware, the consultation included a range of different questions. One of these asks whether the respondent supports or opposes the implementation of a CPZ. The other questions cover how this would be done if indeed it is implemented. My pledge to all residents is that I will only support the implementation of a CPZ if it is supported by the residents who live in the area covered. And I have secured a commitment from the Leader of the Council, Peter John, to honour this. Those living outside the proposed area will still have their voices heard regarding how such a scheme is implemented (if it is implemented at all) so they have not wasted their time responding to the survey. But ultimately the decision whether or not to implement a CPZ in a given area will be determined by the views of those living there. I hope this makes sense. Best wishes James

Hi Abe_froeman I have a response to your question about money to Dulwich Hamlet FC. Thanks for your patience. The council has not paid any money to DHFC in the last 12 months, or indeed in the last 5 years. Prior to this the council did make a series of small payments to DHFC for room booking or pitch booking or similar services. These were each below ?600 and they ended in December 2013. In the 8 year period up until that point the council paid a total of ?7,300 to the club. I hope that this answers your question. Best wishes James

Hi firstmate This could mean partial implementaion within a subarea of the area consulted but it would not be street by street, rather a more substantial section i.e. the streets around East Dulwich station. I outlined this earlier in the thread: jamesmcash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > *Possible outcomes* > In the past the Council has only ever implemented > three potential outcomes of a CPZ consultation. > These are > - Outright rejection of the proposal on the > grounds of majority opposition. This was the case > with the last East Dulwich consultation in 2012. > - Outright implementation of the proposal > following majority support. This has happened in a > number of places for instance Thorburn Square. > - Partial implementation of the proposal in a > contiguous sub-area where the proposal was > supported. This happened in Herne Hill. > > On the final outcome it is worth noting - to > answer MarkT's query - that partial implementation > would only apply to a contiguous area, not to > smatterings of individual roads across East > Dulwich. > > None of these three outcomes involved the Council > railroading decisions against the wishes of local > residents. They are the only options on the table > for this consultation too. You have my word on > this, and also that of the Leader of the Council > Peter John (one of the reasons for the slight > delay in responding on here was that I wanted to > make 100% sure of this with him). > The responses are counted per person. Best wishes James

Dear all I am back from my holiday! 1) All responses to the consultation are considered. However, I have made a commitment - backed by the Leader of the Council - that the scheme will only be implemented in an area if the majority of residents living there respond to the consultation positively. 2) I do not know what the cost will be to implement the scheme. It will clearly depend on the size of the area of coverage, along with a number of other variables which are subject to the consultation. The revenue from parking permits is intended to cover the costs though. 3) The CPZ consultation will have cost nowhere near ?2.5m. I do not know the exact figure for this consultation but in the past they have been around ?20,000 - so less than 1% of the figure you heard! 4) I doubt that the Council put any money into Dulwich Hamlet FC but I can check to make sure. 5) Still looking into the Quietway, which predates me. ArtfulDogger, can you email me directly with a specific set of queries you want me to answer? Best wishes James

(Cross-post from my own thread) Hi all I am really devestated to hear the news of a fatal stabbing on Lordship Lane, in Goose Green ward. I am sure many of you will have seen it in the news. Here is a statement from the police. ? A man has died following a stabbing in East Dulwich. Police were called at approximately 02:35hrs on Sunday, 10 February, to reports of a man stabbed in Lordship Lane, near the junction with East Dulwich Grove, SE22. Officers and London Ambulance Service attended. The victim, believed to be aged in his 30s, was pronounced dead at the scene at 03:04hrs. Formal identification and a post-mortem examination will be arranged in due course. Road closures remain in place around the scene. Detectives from the Homicide and Major Crime Command are investigating. There have been no arrests at this early stage. Enquiries into the circumstances remain ongoing. Any witnesses, or anyone with information, should call police on 101 quoting CAD 1048/10feb. To remain anonymous call Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111? We councillors are in touch with the police and the council. I will provide more information when it is available. Please be very wary of posting any information on here or in public as it could jeopardise the ongoing investigation. Best wishes James

Hi all I am really devestated to hear the news of a fatal stabbing on Lordship Lane, in Goose Green ward. I am sure many of you will have seen it in the news. Here is a statement from the police. ? A man has died following a stabbing in East Dulwich. Police were called at approximately 02:35hrs on Sunday, 10 February, to reports of a man stabbed in Lordship Lane, near the junction with East Dulwich Grove, SE22. Officers and London Ambulance Service attended. The victim, believed to be aged in his 30s, was pronounced dead at the scene at 03:04hrs. Formal identification and a post-mortem examination will be arranged in due course. Road closures remain in place around the scene. Detectives from the Homicide and Major Crime Command are investigating. There have been no arrests at this early stage. Enquiries into the circumstances remain ongoing. Any witnesses, or anyone with information, should call police on 101 quoting CAD 1048/10feb. To remain anonymous call Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111? We councillors are in touch with the police and the council. I will provide more information when it is available. Please be very wary of posting any information on here or in public as it could jeopardise the ongoing investigation. Best wishes James

Hi all It's great to see that this initiative is being discussed on the Forum! I have been discussing this with a number of the schools in the Goose Green area and there is a lot of interest. It is probable that we would look at something around Goose Green Primary School initially but there is potential for it at a number of other schools. Of course, as with all these schemes, the devil is in the detail so before anything is implemented i would want to ensure there is adequate discussion with both the school and the local community. Best wishes James

Dear all MarkT: I apologise if you feel I was being evasive. The requests on the doorstep and those submitted online are similar in that neither are the direct response to a question about parking; both require the resident to independently identify parking as an issue for them and to then decide to raise it. The Council does not routinely write to residents asking them to complete that form. Regardless of the overall outcome of the consultation, I would be astonished if fewer than 100 people support the implementation of a CPZ. That's because fewer people indicate their support unprompted than do when directly asked. Rockets That?s interesting about your experience with a Labour activist a couple of years ago. Not my experience at all. I take on board your points about the Council being clearly in favour of the CPZ being implemented. In a sense this is true - on a global level the Council?s policy is that CPZs are good because of their impact on air pollution and road safety. But at the same time our policy is also that they should only be implemented with majority support. So in a sense the consultation is in part an opportunity for the Council to persuade people that a CPZ is a good thing, whilst also recognising that it is down to the people to decide. I don?t think that this is undemocratic. However, I do agree that - regardless of your overall view on whether or no to implement - there will clearly be some people who will lose out from it, and perhaps these downsides should have been properly outlined. For me, it is a question of finding the right balance. ed_pete 1) I do not think that there is a hard threshold because the consultations need to be consistent with officers? work plans. If lots of areas reached a threshold at the same time it would not be possible to run a consultation in all of them. So it is rather a question of balancing the number of requests with other demands on officers? time. 2) I am afraid I do not have any direct figures for this, but I assure you that there are plenty of people calling for this consultation. I receive countless emails from them. 3) It would break data protection rules to show exactly where they lived but your suspicion is indeed correct that the bulk of them live around the station. AylwardS Thanks for this, very interesting and helpful. Singalto Yes you are correct, I made this point in my initial post on the subject further up the thread. ?*Why is there a consultation* The council has a policy of consulting on the introduction of a CPZ if residents call for one. There have been sections of the Goose Green area which have been very active in calling for this for some time. During the election campaign last year parking was the most commonly-raised local issue. Clearly, with no CPZ in place and no consultation ongoing the people raising it were almost universally those who supported the implentation of one. Although I am reltaively new to this post, I am told that this is the standard pattern: we councillors hear mostly from those who support a CPZ until a consultation happens, at which point we hear more from its opponents. This makes sense to me and it's why it's important to have a meaningful consultation.? Molly/The Nappy Lady One of the key points of the proposed CPZs is to have fewer parked cars on the roads, and to make it easier for residents to find parking spaces. This means balancing the needs of different road users: residents, customers of local businesses, and employees of local businesses. The calculation that has been made is that access to parking should come at a lower cost to local residents than the other groups. This is, in my view, totally reasonable given the alternatives that each group faces if they cannot park. If the latter two groups do not have a permit, or either will not or cannot pay for the hourly rate, then they can make the journey by another means of transport and leave their car at home. Whereas if a resident has no permit then they simply cannot have a car at all. So the consequences of not having a permit are much greater for residents than for employees and therefore it is right that their access to a permit is prioritised over that of other groups. Best wishes James

Hi intexasatthemoment and rendelharris Sorry I was typing the last post while you posted yours so I didn't see it. Yes I do try to keep myself busy but I definitely find time for plenty of sleep! Best wishes James

Dear MarkT and singalto By 'unprompted' I mean that residents raise the issue themselves and not in response to a question. When I knock on doors I ask people if they have any issues or concerns. As I said before, the second most common response to this (after Brexit) is parking. If I prompted people by asking "do you have any concerns about parking?" more people would clearly raise it. So that figure of 100 represents not all the people who have concerns about parking but rather just the minority who raise them on the council website. Of course, singalto is totally correct that these 100 requests are not alone sufficient reason to implement the scheme. But no one is claiming they are. Those requests, alongside the many others who raise it with us on the doorstep, are just sufficient reason to ask the question more widely, which is what the Council is doing. I have been very clear from the beginning of this process that the consultation will not lead to a CPZ being implemented against the wishes of those living in the area. Presumably you would agree that if the majority supports it then this is sufficient reason to implement it. Best wishes James

Hi all Let me try to your questions. Abe_froeman - I think that you perhaps misread what I wrote. From the beginning of this process I have consistently said that I would fight for whatever residents opt for. Sporthuntor - You are of course totally correct that ~100 households is a tiny minority of the total affected area. But given that these are totally unprompted requests, it is quite significant. And these are just the people who actively write to the council. In addition there are the people who raise it on the doorstep. I have knocked on thousands of doors across Goose Green and whenever I do I always ask if the resident has any issues or concerns to raise, without giving any prompting on topic. Parking is second only to Brexit, which I think speaks volumes. I accept that there have been some flaws in the way the consultation has been organised and - as I have emphasised above - I will only support implementation if it wins majority support but I think it was right to give the community the opportunity to have its voice heard. Rockets - As I said above, my over-riding focus is not on whether or not I support the proposal personally but rather to ensure that the outcome best reflects the will of the local community. However, I am happy to share my personal view regardless. My personally preferred outcome would be partial implementation of the scheme so that the commuter issues around the train station are resolved but that areas which do not currently have issues are not affected. However, I should emphasise that this is just my personal view and I will push for whatever is supported by the consultation. To answer your specific questions - There is no guarantee that sending a further letter and extending the deadline will ensure everyone receives notification of the consultation but it is bound to help and will undoubtedly drive up the turnout, so I think it was the right decision. - The decision will be taken solely on the basis of the consultation responses. Otherwise there is a high-risk of double-counting. I know that the local traders are encouraging residents to complete the consultation so I hope there will be a large and representative response rate. - The business permit rates are benchmarked against other boroughs. Southwark's are cheaper than Lambeth, Islington, Hammersmith and Fulham, and Tower Hamlets. Furthermore, Westminster, City of London, and Kensington and Chelsea do not have business permits at all so local businesses have to pay the more expensive pay-per-hour rate. - The views of those who attend the additional drop-in meetings will definitely be taken into account. I do not yet know the date but I am going to try my best to attend myself. alex_b and TheArtfulDogger - Let me get back to you about the Southwark Spine, this predates me becoming a councillor so I want to make sure I have the correct information before I respond. Regarding the Barry Road 20mph consultation, the response overwhelming showed that while there was some support for speed calming measures, the proposed lost of parking was considered to be too great. Consequently the local councillors are going to work with officers to bring back a new proposal. Best wishes James