jamesmcash

Dear all If anyone has paid for their garden waste sticker and has not received it by the end of next week (5th July) please let me know. Many people should have it by now. Best wishes James

Just to let you know that the councillors are discussing this. We opposed the changes in the consultation process but as you know the changes to the 12 bus were not mentioned. Best wishes James

Hi Nigello, As I said above no one has ever contacted me to say that they have an electric car charge point outside their house that they regularly cannot access due to other cars being parked there. If this is the case for you then do let me know and I will look into what can be done about it. But I do not think it is necessary to roll this out as a blanket policy at this moment. Best wishes James

Hi all Electric car charging points The council is rolling out electric car charge points across the borough. If you have an electric car or plan to buy one then please email me with your name and address and I can make sure that your street is prioritised. Each charge point normally serves 4 parking spaces so once a point is installed near your home it should be possible to access it relatively frequently. I have had a fair few people contact me about having a charge point installed near their address but not anyone complain that they have one by their home which they cannot access. In my view, there are not currently enough electric cars in the area to justify rolling out dedicated spaces by the charge points. I worry too that this would add to existing parking pressure. The electricity provided by these lamposts is chargeable to the user. It is free to request installation of a charge-point though. Policy on CPZ implementation I am afraid that I am unsure of how these different documents interact. But I do know for certain that the current policy in practice is the one I support: CPZs to only be implemented with the consent of residents. This will be confirmed, no doubt, when the East Dulwich CPZ is implemented in an area with majority support from residents. Best wishes James

Hi First Mate I think your bin should arrive at the same time as the sticker. Let me know if it doesn't arrive within two weeks and I will chase it up! Best wishes James

How can we improve East Dulwich train station? The government has forced Govia Thameslink Railway to introduce a ?15m fund for passenger benefit. ?30,000 will be spent on improving train stations in Southwark. East Dulwich is one of the ones on the list. You can submit your ideas until 31st July. Just email [email protected] Other Southwark train stations eligible are: Denmark Hill, North Dulwich, Nunhead, Peckham Rye, Queen?s Road Peckham, South Bermondsey More information on how to submit your idea is on GTR?s website: https://www.passengerbenefitfund.co.uk/

Dear all Thanks for your comments and questions. Garden waste There has been an ICT issue which has led to a delay in the distribution of stickers. They will be sent out next week. There is a grace period before collections cease so this should not affect anyone. I am still chasing up information about the bags. Sorry it is taking so long! Data for CPZ consultation AylwardS is right - I have not shared the dataset with anyone. A fuller picture of the data will be available when the final report is released next month. Borough-wide CPZ The Southwark Local Implementation Plan 3 states that the council wants to reduce trips made by car/motorbike to 13% by 2041. It further states that introducing a borough-wide CPZ would be a means of achieving this. Personally, I do not think that this is necessary. I think that the council's current policy - to be led by requests from local people - is the right one. But there are 22 years (and 5 local elections!) to discuss this before we reach that deadline. Of course, there are definitely some people who would like to see this happen and want to see it sooner. I am not one of them though - and I will continue to argue in favour of existing policy Rockets - Please email me with your name and address, and if you are in Goose Green I will be happy to take on this casework. If not, I will pass your concern onto the relevant councillors. Best wishes James

Hi ed_pete I am not a data protection expert so I do not know exactly why these data have not yet been released. The version I have is in a different format to that which has been used for the final report for previous consultations so that might be something to do with it. As I say, you will get the figures eventually though. Best wishes James

Dear Rockets and Katanita Katanita - I agree, it's not as clear as it should be. It took me a fair while to work out the answer to everyone's questions. Can you email me with your name and address? I will look into where your food waste bin is and see if I can hurry it along. Rockets - email me with your name and address and I will look into the pavement works on your street, find out why they are being done, and look into how much they cost. I appreciate that you are making a more general political point but if in addition there are any concerns with how the roadwork are being carried out then do make sure you note that too. Best wishes James

Hi all Thanks for all your comments and questions. Let me try to respond to them. Garden waste Funding of public services I believe that public services should be provided universally, free at the point of use and funded through progressive taxation. So I have a huge amount of sympathy for anyone who disagrees with the introduction of a collection charge. Unfortunately, I think that this is probably the least-bad option available to us given the dire state of local government funding after a decade of austerity. Environmental impact It is true that if people stop using the garden waste collection and instead put the waste in the landfill, this will have a negative environmental impact. However, this has to be weighed against potential positives: - More efficient routes - the council currently visits many properties who do not use the service, with the charge the council will only visit subscribers - Greater uptake of composting There will also be a push to increase food waste collection. For instance, there is an ongoing trial into providing these bins for blocks of flats. I will push for the council to evaluate the environmental impact of the policy and practice. Vehicles There is longer term pending waste legislation requiring the council to collect food and garden waste seperately and send them off to different disposal routes. However, initially the food and garden waste collections will be done by the same vehicles. Food waste If you currently use the food waste collection service you will not need to do anything different. Collections Both food waste and garden waste will be collected weekly. This may be on a different day for some residents but if so you will be informed of this change. Paper sacks It will still be possible to arrange for garden waste to be collected from the paper sacks provided by the council. The sacks will cost ?15 for 20. Collections will be free but have to be arranged. As far as I know anyone with existing paper sacks will continue to be able to use these but I am going to check this for certain. It should be possible to order the new ones from June. People using neighbour?s bins I do not know of this being a significant issue elsewhere but if it does happen here then please let me know and I will look into it. Stickers I am not sure when the stickers will arrive but if you have any issue with the bins not being collected after you have paid for them please do let me know and I will chase it up. CPZ Time of operation In the smaller ?East Dulwich Grove? area proposed by me and my fellow councillors (not the ?Melbourne Grove? area proposed by the council officers, see previous posts above for distinction) there is a clear majority for an all day CPZ. Prioritising views of residents regarding their own roads The consultation asked residents if they want a CPZ on their road. It is true that it could have instead asked if residents want a CPZ in their wider area. I can see the case for the latter: it is undoubtedly true that the impact of a CPZ is felt beyond its boundaries. Nonetheless, I think the method the council adopted is preferable because it allows us to design a bespoke area which suits the maximum number of people. Impact on Lordship Lane A significant number of respondents to the consultation raised concerns regarding the impact of a CPZ on Lordship Lane?s businesses. We councillors listened to this and that influenced our decision to recommend the shrink the size of the proposed zone so that the vast majority of streets used by Lordship Lane customers will be unaffected. East Dulwich station The number of journeys started or ended at East Dulwich station has quadrupled over the past twenty years. It would have been hard for residents to have predicted this when choosing to live there. Access to consultation data The street-by-street data will be made publicly available as part of the final report, on which Cllr Livingstone will make his final decision. (Ed_pete: I think you misread my sentence yourself actually! Perhaps you read ?than? as ?that?. Thanks anyway though, I have definitely made typos on here in the past! ) Pavement slabs I am not sure how much has been spent on pavement slabs in Goose Green. There is a process for working out which pavement slabs should be replaced based on an evaluation of their deterioration and a calculation of how often they are used. I have on a few occasions had people ask me to arrange for some pavement to be replaced. This is the first time I have ever had someone complain that the pavements are too nice or too new! If anyone has any issues with a particular bit of pavement please let me know by email with a photo and an address. I hope that this answers your questions. Best wishes James

Hi MarkT Just realised that the document you linked was a consultation document and not the final version. The final version includes no reference to 2025 and instead talks about a general strategy to reduce car use by 13% by 2041. Best wishes James

Hi first mate I was just responding to your point "I suspect residents on Heber Road may be very interested in CPZ on other roads in ED". Personally, I suspect that most understand that different parts of the community have different needs. This is purely anecdotal and was not a factor in determining whether there should be a CPZ around the station. That decision was based on the consultation responses. Best wishes James

Dear all I hope you are all well and enjoying the sunshine. I will try to respond to your comments and questions. intexasatthe_moment The double yellow lines on the CPZ consultation pack are subject to further statutory consultation - even on the minority of streets where there will be a CPZ at all. I am happy to look at removing a dropped kerb if it is no longer needed but I would need to do this on a case-by-case basis. Please email me with specifics: your name and address, the location of the dropped kerb, why it should be removed. MarkT and TheArtfullDogger Thanks for raising this with me. I have looked it into and am still confused by the reference in this document. Cllr Livingstone is looking into it further but assures me that nothing borough-wide is currently planned. Looking at trends across London and other major cities, it is believed that demand for controls will increase over the coming decades but that is not consistent with the 2025 date you quoted. I will find out more and let you know. ed_pete Yes our recommendations are based on a fuller set of information than is currently available publicly. This is due to data protection concerns. "boundaried which make sense" - i.e you cannot have a road with unrestricted parking surrounded by roads which do not, and if boundaries coincide with major roads this is easier for drivers to understand/remember. first mate The people of East Dulwich are very reasonable. Lots of them do not want a CPZ - and most will not get one - but they understand that the parking pressures are different in different places. The vast majority of people who I've spoken to at the Heber Road end of East Dulwich accept that if people living around the station want controlled parking then they should get it, so long as they do not have to have it on their street too! Cllr Livingstone is due to make his decision next month. Rockets I will try my best to respond to as many as possible of your points here! Firstly, I was interested to read the park car park consultation online response mechanism that allowed the respondent to "oppose the plans in their entirety". Interesting that such a response was not given for the CPZ consultation - why was that? The CPZ consultation unapologetically prioritises the views of those living on a given street. No one lives in the parks so there is no relevant comparison here. This might have benefited the council but it didn't benefit the members of the community, from both sides, who showed up to have their say and were denied that opportunity. There were two discussion about the CPZ. One started at the beginning of the meeting when there were evidently many people there. The second began shortly after the CPZ item's start time had been advertised. So anyone who had attended the meeting with the intention of discussing the CPZ had the opportunity to do so. I totally agree that elements of the meeting were poorly organised and it is regrettable that some residents had to wait befor being able to join the meeting but it is not the case that people were denied the opportunity to discuss the proposals. We would all love to be able to park directly outside our houses but many are sanguine enough to realise that to do so close to Lordship Lane could well kill Lordship Lane as we know it. Please note that my proposed area would mean no change to parking on the bulk of streets used by Lordship Lane's customers. And you didn't answer my question on what the council is re-investing that money in - just what did the council spend ?5.8m on road maintenance on last year why has that increased from ?1.7m in 2011/12? In the early days of Tory-LibDem austerity the council made big cuts to road maintenance. Within a few years it became clear that this was a false economy: the roads were deteriorating and more remedial work was needed. As a result the policy switched to programming more planned improvements. The roads are now much better. Also, I think the figures you have quoted there might be gross figures which also include investment in cycling infrastructure. This often comes from external sources (TfL etc). I really don't think you are acting in the best interests of the community at large. Noted. gumshoe I 100% agree with you that public services should be provided free at the point of use, and funded through progressive taxation. Under a future Labour Government, I hope that the brutal cuts to local government under Tory and Tory-LibDem austerity are reversed. Sadly, at the moment, Southwark Council has only 50% of the central government grant it had ten years ago. This leaves the council with only two options: raise revenue, or make cuts. With two thirds of the council budget spent on children and adults social care, it is very hard to do this without affecting the most vulnerable people in the borough. So while I wish that the garden waste charge was not being implemented, I believe it is the least-bad option available. In terms of environmental effects the council expects that the positive effects (e.g. more composting) will outweigh the negatives, but this will be monitored going forward. I will look into getting the environmental impact analysis. Best wishes, James

Hi all I hope you are all enjoying your bank holiday weekend. Let me try to answer some of the questions on here. Ed_pete - I emphasised that the consultation asked people if they wanted a CPZ on their road because there is some misinformation being circulated to say that 68% of people in East Dulwich do not want a CPZ in East Dulwich. We do not know how many people in East Dulwich want a CPZ on Derwent Grove (for example) because only the people on Derwent Grove were asked this. I suspect that the majority of people on streets like Heber Road (for example) have no strong feeling on this subject, despite being quite opposed to there being a CPZ on their own road. However, what we do know is that the majority of people on Derwent Grove do want a CPZ on Derwent Grove. And the majority of people in the area I have proposed above want a CPZ on their road too. The proposed area is not based on a count of roads for and against, it is based on the total number of respondents for and against, balanced with the need to design boundaries which make sense. The area I have proposed above does this. Rockets - I agree that the meeting was not well organised in advance. However, once it was clear that there were too many people to fit there were three options: 1) Cancel the meeting entirely - leaving residents with no opportunity to discuss the matter 2) Postpone it to a future date - which would have meant that the many people who had turned up would needlessly lose their opportunity to contribute there 3) Organise the two sessions back-to-back - which would mean that everyone who had come to the meeting expecting the CPZ to be discussed at the pre-advertised time would have opportunity to do so. The Chair took the 3rd option, which I think was the best one available to us. This had nothing to do with any requirement for the Council to have the meeting before a decision is taken - the council?s constitution has no such requirement so a decision could have been taken on the CPZ even if the meeting was cancelled (I would not have supported this option). ?The motivation is not the good of the community but to swell the ?15m annual revenue and ?6m surplus the council makes from parking permits, pay and display and PCNs and your constituents are the victims of this? - There are plenty of people who want a CPZ in their area (predominantly in the area where I argue there should be one). They are not stooges of the council or under-cover council officers. They are expressing genuine concerns which the council is trying to address. - It is illegal for the council to introduce a CPZ to raise revenue. - Any revenue that the council does raise goes straight back into public services anyway, it?s not as if it?s syphoned into the bank account of billionaires in the Cayman Islands. You may disagree with the conclusions I have reached but I cannot see what evidence you have that I am not acting with the best interests of the community at heart. intexasatthe moment ?James - if there are dropped kerbs that are redundant (eg wall built ) is there a mechanism for removing their dropped kerb designation ? So that they don't get included in the planned double yellow lines over ( and beyond ) them .? Great question! I am afraid I do not know but I will find out for you and get back to you as soon as I can. TheArtfulDogger I am going to look into why this is mentioned in this document because it is the first I have heard of such a decision being taken, which makes me think it is a mistake. dougiefreeman Thanks for your comments. I do understand your perspective. The final decision will be taken by Cabinet Member Cllr Richard Livingstone so it is worth contacting him directly with your views: [email protected] Best wishes James

Dear all Last Saturday was Dulwich Community Council. This is a council meeting open to all residents of Goose Green, Dulwich Hill, Dulwich Village and Dulwich Wood wards. On this occasion the main item on the agenda was the proposed controlled parking zones (CPZs) in East Dulwich and Peckham West. It is fair to say that the council did not adequately prepare for the number of people who wanted to attend. The room was not big enough and there were insufficient chairs. It was clear that the vast majority of the attendees were there to discuss the CPZs, and not the other items on the agenda. Consequently, the Community Council Chair, Cllr Andy Simmons, took the decision to remove all other items from the agenda and to run the discussion about the CPZs twice back-to-back. This meant that as many people as possible were able to discuss this important issue. The first session started immediately and the second started shortly after the discussion had been originally scheduled to take place on the agenda. We first heard from the council?s Acting Head of Highways, who provided an overview of what had happened so far and where the process will go next. He also answered some factual questions. Then there was a discussion from the floor, opened up with pre-agreed speeches from each side of the debate: the traders were represented, as were the pro-CPZ residents living near the station. At the end of the discussion it was to the councillors to agree a recommendation from the Community Council to Cllr Richard Livingstone, who will ultimately make the final decision. I made a number of proposals, which were then followed up by my fellow Goose Green Labour Councillor, Cllr Charlie Smith. All of these were agreed. I am going to first briefly summarise the process to-date, the outline the recommendations agreed by Dulwich Community Council, and finally explain the next steps of the process. How we got here Here?s a brief timeline - Before I was elected last year and when I was a Labour candidate, I was frequently asked about controlled parking. Whether the person questioning me was for or against I always said the same thing: a CPZ should only be implemented if local residents want it. - Over the summer discussion about a potential consultation began on here. I made it clear in September that the CPZ consultation was not all-or-nothing and that if it were supported in one section of the area but not in others then it could be implemented in just that section. - This winter the consultation launched, and the key question asked residents if they want a CPZ on their road. It was not an all-or-nothing referendum on whether to implement a CPZ across the whole area, it was a consultation to identify whether or not there are streets which want one. - In January I pledged on here, and with the support of the leader of the Council, Cllr Peter John, that there were three potential outcomes: full implementation across the consultation area, full rejection across the consultation area, or partial implementation in just a subsection of the consultation area where there is majority support. - In April the interim reports of the consultations were released, each with a recommendation from officers for how to proceed. Recommendation 1: Shrinking Area of the East Dulwich CPZ The officer-proposed ?Melbourne Grove area? is consistent with my pledge above: there is a majority in this area for a CPZ. But when I looked at the map of responses it was clear to me that the support came from two sections: the area around the station and the area around the new health centre. At the south east of this area there are four roads which all intersect with Lordship Lane, and which taken together had a majority against the CPZ. These are Ashbourne, Chesterfield, Bassano and Blackwater. From my experience of talking to people on Melbourne Grove I strongly suspected that there would be a stark difference in opinion between those at the northern end near the station and those at the southern end near Lordship Lane. When I asked for this data to be segmented into North and South, my views were confirmed and it turned out that there was a strong majority for a CPZ in the part of Melbourne Grove north of East Dulwich Grove, and a strong majority against in the part to the south. Not only do these 4 and a half streets have a majority against a CPZ, they are also the streets which are most likely to be used by visitors to Lordship Lane (the streets coming off the other side of Lordship Lane were not even included in the officers? proposal). So given the lack of support for a CPZ on these roads, and the concerns raised by local traders, I proposed that Ashbourne,Chesterfield, Bassano, Blackwater and the southern section of Melbourne Grove be removed from the CPZ. Given that the CPZ would no longer cover much of Melbourne Grove I further suggested that the CPZ be renamed ?East Dulwich Grove CPZ? Bearing in mind that residents were asked whether they want a CPZ on their road, this proposal would mean that 75% of respondents will live under the outcome they want and 19% live will under the outcome they do not. It will also mean that the main streets used for parking Recommendation 2: Shrinking Area of Peckham West CPZ The principles above, if applied to Peckham West, led me to think that Ondine Road and East Dulwich Road should be excluded from the CPZ. They are on the edge fo the proposed area, together they have a majority against the CPZ, and they are near enough to Lordship Lane to be used by shoppers. I have to say, I have received many fewer people contact me about this than did regarding the East Dulwich boundaries, so I suspect that it is not an issue which concerns people as much. Nonetheless, I thought it was important to apply the same principles consistently. Recommendation 3: Peckham West times of operation The officer proposal was for Peckham West to have an all day CPZ. As identified above by tmcoleman, the statistical justification for this is questionable. The breakdown of responses is as follows: - All day: 34% - 12-2pm: 29% - Part of the day: 13% - Other: 17% - Did not answer: 7% The officer recommendation is that given that All Day is the most popular option, this should be proposed. However, I agree with tmcoleman that the people who responded either Part Day or 12-2 (42% altogether) would prefer some form of Part Day CPZ to an All Day CPZ. So, given this, I proposed that Dulwich Community Council recommend that the Peckham West CPZ is only from 12-2pm. Other recommendations The remaining recommendations came from Cllr Charlie Smith. They are quite specific and detail-focused but I think that they will make a big difference when it comes to implementing a CPZ. They are in response to a number of concerns raised with all of us: - Request that officers minimise the lengths of double yellow lines across dropped kerbs and elsewhere in the design of the CPZ - Request that officers review the cost of monthly permits and annual permits?such that residents are not penalised for paying monthly - Request that officers review the Whateley Road green screen to ensure that it does not impact on visibility at this critical junction - Request that officers present a follow up monitoring report to Dulwich Community Council if the CPZs are implemented Process from here The above recommendations - from both Cllr Charlie Smith and me - were all approved unanimously. However, Dulwich Community Council does not make the final decision on this issue. We have sent our recommendations onto Cllr Richard Livingstone who will make the final decision in the coming weeks. If he decides to implement one or more CPZs then that will lead to a further round of traffic management consultations. This is where the details of things like double yellow lines are worked out street by street. There will also be further opportunity to shape some of the specific details of the proposal. As always, I am happy to answer any questions. Best wishes James

Hi all I am going to try to respond to a few of the specific queries on here before providing a more general update on the CPZ. I will come back to the queries about garden waste as soon as I can. Abe_froeman ?I am pleased ... how well the published report accurately reflects that data.? Thanks Abe_froeman, it?s great to hear that you have such total confidence in the council, despite not having had a chance to read the data yourself :P I am afraid that I cannot share the full dataset. It will be published in a form that is compliant with the relevant legislation (see the Dog Kennel Hill CPZ repot for an example) but I am not sure exactly when. I can see why the post from ed_moots made you think that I have shared the dataset with others but I can assure you that all I shared there were the handful of percentages included in their post above. As far as I know, the only people with access to the full dataset are the councillors and council officers. ED_moots The consultation treats each individual separately, not each household. Regardless of how many vehicles a household owns, the members of the household may not agree on the issue. Mrs D I will respond to the general issue of DYL later but I just wanted to flag up that I am working with local schools on a crossing for Whately Road. sporthuntor I thought you were apologising for misreading, I did not realise you were also apologising for being rude. Apology accepted! TE44 Great question! Let me find out. Rockets I am going to comment fully on the Dulwich Community Council meeting below but I just wanted to say that I agree with you that the way it was organised was far from satisfactory. Best wishes James

Dear all 18 new trees have been planted in Goose Green ward! Huge thanks to Robin who has done some great work with the council on this issue. The Goose Green councillors - Victoria Olisa, Charlie Smith, and I - are keen to continue this in the future. The Dulwich planning documents support the provision of plenty of trees and they have such a positive impact on air quality, mental health, and the beauty of the area. Please find below the locations and species for the 18 trees: (Road - Location Number - Species) Barry Road - 74 - Tilia x europaea Colwell Road - o/s 32 - Prunus x yedoensis Crystal Palace Road - o/s 305 - Crateagus x lavellei Cyrena Road - adj to Rodwell Road - Prunus avium Plena Goose Green - inside park - Platanus x hispanica Heber Road - o/s 14 - Prunus Pan_dora (no underscore) Landcroft Road - 72 - Prunus x yedoensis Lordship lane - o/s 96 - Platanus x hispanica Lordship lane - o/s 104 - Platanus x hispanica Melbourne Grove - close to Grove Vale - Prunus x yedoensis Melbourne Grove - outside Melbourne Terrace - Prunus x yedoensis Melbourne Grove - o/s 133 - Prunus sunset boulervard Melbourne Grove - o/s 65 - Aesculus x carnea North Cross Road - corner Fellbrigg Road - Liquidambar styraciflua Nutfield Road - outside 47/48 - Prunus Umineko Nutfield Road - o/s 13 - Prunus Umineko Nutfield Road - o/s 15 - Prunus Umineko Zenoria Street - O/s 23 - Prunus tai Haku Best wishes James Edit: I had to edit this almost a dozen times because for some reason the word Pan_dora (with no underscore) is blocked!

Dear all I hope you are all having a pleasant bank holiday weekend. I?ve been away and unavailable for most of the past week, hence the delay in responding. I?ve read everyone?s comments and will try to respond to as many as possible. Please also remember that the meeting of Dulwich Community Council where we will discuss this is on Saturday at 2.30pm, at Dulwich Library. Do come along and contribute to the discussion. Abe _froeman You are absolutely right to raise this. It is very clear that this is a real concern of many residents. This is, in part, why I am keen to keep as many as possible of the roads around Lordship Lane CPZ-free, hence my proposal to remove 4 1/2 roads from the CPZ area. Now let me answer your questions: how was the undecided category determined - does that mean votes were equally split between for and against? A road only appeared Red or Green on the map if there was a majority (i.e above 50%) either for or against. If the number of undecided meant that there was not a majority for either side then the street appears Blue. how will the council manage the split results through Melbourne Grove as it is clear one half wants it - the other doesn't and any impact on those roads who voted against it? The first version of the report did not show Melbourne Grove split into two. From my own experiences of canvassing the area, and from the many emails I have recieved on the subject, I knew that there would be a very different response at different ends of this long road. It was for this reason that I asked for this further breakdown to be included. I was correct: the North section is 63% in favour and 26% against, whereas the South is the reverse with 58% against and 36% for. why have you not seen the data - you are the elected official for the area and I would have thought it was vital you have the data to hand before you sent your note about your suggestions for tweaks to the plan? I have now seen the full dataset. I did not need the full set of data to know that my suggestions would increase the number of people living under an outcome they wanted: that was clear from the data in the report. So I wanted to make these suggestions as soon as possible to give people time to consider them before the Dulwich Community Council meeting. which two streets did not respond and do we know why they didn't respond? There are some very small streets in the area with fewer than five properties, and it can sometimes be ambiguous whether or not the collection of properties should even be considered a full street or just a section of another. What have you done to champion the views of the traders represented in your ward? In terms of the CPZ I have suggested above, as you know, a proposal to reduce the size of the CPZ so that it does not include streets on which shoppers park. I have also worked with traders on a number of other separate projects. Nice reference. KidKruger This is what I am trying to do. Clearly you disagree, which is fair enough. There will be another election in 3 years? time in which you will be able to vote for a different candidate - or stand yourself! - if you feel like I am not doing an adequate job. first mate There is limited parking supply of parking spaces. If supply exceeds demand then there is no problem parking. If demand exceeds supply then there are problems which a CPZ solves. There are a number of streets in the area where this is clearly the case: where demand exceeds supply and where residents experience lots of problems parking. In my view, it is totally reasonable to respond to this by regulating the parking in the area to prioritise the needs of local residents. You are right that this excess demand will then probably - in part - be displaced. (In part because some people will choose to use public transport or active travel instead).But this displacement will only cause problems if the nearby streets are already nearly at maximum capacity: if there is plenty of excess supply then the displaced vehicles will not cause a problem. In other words, parking displacement from a small CPZ only causes a problem if in the overall area there is excess demand for parking. In which case, that?s an argument for a bigger CPZ not an argument against having one at all. If there is a risk of problems caused by parking displacement then this is further evidence of the acute problems already experienced by those living on streets from which parking would be displaced. The issue of parking displacement is addressed when the consultation asks respondents if they would support a CPZ if there was one on a neighbouring street. rollflick Thanks a lot for your comments. You?ve raised some interesting points regarding cycling which do not come up enough but I think it is important that council does not implement a CPZ against the wishes of the residents living on those streets. Fair point about engagement of non-drivers though. Juno Thanks for your comments. Did you see my suggestion above for a smaller area and shorter hours? Do you support that? Waste collection There have a been a few quite specific questions about waste collection too. I will find out more information about this and get back to you in full. I hope you?re all enjoying the sun! Best wishes James

Dear Penguin68 Thanks for clarifying. Best wishes James

Dear all I hope that everyone is having a pleasant and relaxing weekend. To respond to the queries above: Rockets - Thank you very much for your comments. I do have a lot of sympathy for your position. Ultimately though, I disagree with your analysis of how the consultation should work. It was never designed as a vote or a referendum in the way that you are describing it. If it had been then I would agree that this outcome is unreasonable: if we redrew the constituency boundaries after people had voted in an election to ensure that particular parties were elected that would rightfully cause outrage. But this consultation was never designed to be analysed like this. Its purpose was always to identify if and where there was appetite for a controlled parking zone and implement it there. I am sorry if this was not clear from the consultation documents itself but I have always made this very clear to everyone who has contacted me. Back on September 2nd - months before the consultation began - I stated so on this thread: The consultation will identify what appetite there is for controlled parking in different areas. The consultation area is quite big but the results will not be all-or-nothing. In other words, if controlled parking is popular in some areas but not in others then the former can have controlled parking and the latter not. Contrary to your comment ?It was obvious to everyone what the result was going to be? I do not think it was always clear. In fact, it seemed like a lot of people thought that the council would impose a CPZ on the entire area regardless of how people voted. I wanted to reassure these residents that this was not the case so on January 29th I pledged that the only potential outcomes from the consultation were the following: - 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. I spoke to the Leader of the Council, Peter John, and asked of his assurance that this pledge would be honoured. He said it would, and it has been. 68% of residents in the area said they did not want a CPZ. So if we do not implement a CPZ then 68% of people will live in an area with their desired outcome. I do not have the full figures available to me so I cannot work out the exact statistics but if there is a small majority-supported CPZ around the station (either the office recommended one, or the slightly smaller one that I suggested above) then it is a mathematical certainty that this will mean that more than 68% of people will live in an area with their desired outcome: a majority of those opposed in the area with no CPZ; and a majority of those supporting in the area with one. I do not think that this is undemocratic at all; quite the opposite. As I say, if your hope or expectation was that the consultation be treated as a straight Yes/No referendum for the whole area, then I fully understand why you are unhappy with the recommendations. But this was never the case so what I am trying to do now is find the best possible solution, following the process I outlined right from the start. This will inevitably be a compromise. Penguin68 - Did you see my suggestions above? My initial post on this thread after the consultation report came out was to ask a few quick questions of people on here. I will repost it here for ease: Singalto - I used the word ?externalities? in response to mikeb who used it too. It?s a term in economics. Essentially it means an impact on a third party caused by a transaction or relationship between two other parties. In this example, if a CPZ is implemented on one set of streets, an externality is the impact on parking in nearby streets where no CPZ is implemented. ED_moots - the decision on where to implement a CPZ is based on the consultation responses. In that sense, the deputation had no weight. However, where it (and also the traders petition, presented at the same council assembly) does have weight is in helping the Councillors to understand the range of opinions on the issue. But no one assumes that those speaking in the deputation speak on behalf of everyone on those roads. Eileen - This sentence is clumsily phrased. What it means is that there will be a final report issued to the Cabinet Member and this will include feedback from the Council Assembly just passed (27th March) and from the Community Council coming (27th April). The Community Council is open to everyone living in Goose Green, Dulwich Hill, Dulwich Wood, and Dulwich Village ward. Do come along to have your view heard. Best wishes James

Dear all I will try to respond to as many comments and questions as I can. Differential charging for petrol and diesel Siduhe - the differential charging for petrol and diesel cars was not included in the East Dulwich consultation because it is a borough-wide issue. The differential charging has not yet been confirmed but if introduced it will apply to controlled parking zones across Southwark. It was part of the Southwark Labour manifesto which we were elected on in 2018. Mikeb - there will be a session like the one you describe at Dulwich Community Council on 27th April. This will give residents a chance to discuss the proposals before the Community Council issues a recommendation to the council. Externalities and traffic displacement You are right that the introduction of a CPZ in one area leads to externalities felt in others. The most obvious is the one you mention: that it could lead to higher parking pressure on neighbouring streets. This is why the council asks residents if their view would change if a CPZ was introduced on a neighbouring street. There are clearly some streets where residents feel strongly that a CPZ should be introduced because their current parking situation is unmanageable. If managing the parking on those streets down to a reasonable and appropriate level makes parking on neighbouring streets unmanageable then in my view this is an argument the CPZ to be wider, not for it to not exist at all. Why should the residents on Derwent Grove and the north section of Melbourne Grove have to put up with nightmare parking just because people elsewhere do not want a parking zone? Parking is not a public good so when is in scarce supply, as it is in sections of East Dulwich, it needs to be regulated. And then of course there is the consideration of another externality: the impact of the poor air quality on a much wider group of people. Sporthuntor - Sorry for not responding earlier. I didn?t realise that you expected a response. When you refer to ?the group of streets to the west of Lordship Lane below Matham Grove? do you mean Ashbourne Grove, Chesterfield Grove, Blackwater Street, Bassano Street and the southern section of Melbourne Grove? If so, you will see that I raised this exact same question myself in my first post of yesterday (the one which shared the interim report and which kicked off this discussion in the first place). Rahrahrah - The council is doing various things regarding improving and encouraging active travel (bike lanes, walking etc) but a lot of this is out of our control. TfL are responsible for most public transport, and the central government has cuts its government grant. KidKruger - I have noted your strongly-felt feelings on the subject. Tmcoleman - Email me with your address and if you are a Goose Green resident I will look into it for you, and if not I will pass you onto the relevant councillors. First mate - I do not know the cost for this consultation specifically but in general they cost about ?20,000 Finally can I say that I am quite surprised and disappointed by the tone of some of the responses on here. I appreciate that this is an issue which divides opinion, and for which feelings are strong on either side, but there is really no need for personal attacks or swearing. I am only on here because I want to encourage genuine engagement on the issue and to find a solution which suits the most people possible. Regardless of what you think of the issue itself, the motivation for doing this consultation is positive. The council wants to improve air quality and make it easier to park for those who have expressed concerns about it. It is true that a CPZ can raise revenue for the council too but we do not know how much: it is illegal for the council to introduce one for revenue raising reasons and therefore also illegal for the council to model how much it will raise. But even then, I think we should remember that revenue raised by the council does not go into the offshore bank accounts of unaccountable billionaires, it goes right back into the public services we all rely on. It is totally fair enough for people to have strong opinions on whether a CPZ is introduced on their street or on neighbouring streets, but I think it would be positive if we started the discussion with the assumption that the process is a genuine attempt to engage local people on an issue that splits opinion and not a conspiracy organised by evil council officers. Best wishes and enjoy your weekends! James

Dear all Thanks a lot for your comments. I will not respond to everything but where there are questions I will do my best to answer them. Abe_froeman - I agree that no CPZ would be fine for the majority of people in the consultation area, but it would continue to mean that those around the station experience problems. I am hoping to find a solution which maximises the number of people living under the outcome they prefer. This means a CPZ in one area and not in the other. What further information do you want from the consultation responses? I can try to find out for you. Cardelia - I agree about the map. The idea to segment the responses on Melbourne Grove was my suggestion: I knew that there would be a big difference between the respondents to the north and those to the south. I?m pleased you like my suggestion about removing those 4 1/2 roads. Siduhe - likewise, thanks for your comments about those 4 1/2 roads. Let me look into the diesel issue for you. Rockets - My instinct is that 9.30am-10.30am would have a much lower impact on the commuter parking issue than a slot in the middle of the day. Moreover, there seems to be a lot of support in that area for a full day CPZ, with 2 hours as the second best option so I am not sure if I could justify proposing it be for less than 2 hours. I disagree that it is a whitewash, obviously. As I said above, I am keen to find a solution that works for the maximum number of residents. Ginster - email me with your address and I will either look into it myself or, if you are not one of my constituents, pass it onto the appropriate councillors. Best wishes James

Dear Rockets The report uses maps to show which roads support, oppose or are undecided. Support is green, oppose is red and undecided is blue. Best wishes James

Dear Penguin68 The brown bag scheme continues. Residents can buy a bundle of 20 sacks for ?15 and the council will then collect those without the household having to subscribe to the new fee. This option may not be practical for households with larger gardens but it may be a good options for those with smaller gardens. Best wishes James

Hi all Now that we have the consultation responses and the interim report and recommendations , I am keen to hear the views of local residents on what to do next. I have written about the next stages of the process over on my thread here: /forum/read.php?5,1932267,page=10 Best wishes James