New Southwark Form to request a CPZ now online

[worldwiser]

The 'hell' you speak of is how most Londoners live. I fail to see how the good people of ED wouldn't cope along with them. And most of your scenarios relate to a full day CPZ which I don't believe anyone wants. A single hour of restriction is all that's required.

[jimlad48]

Southwark are totally different. Go to website, enter visitor registration and date of visit, confirm this is the right car, click okay, and the car is fine to park in the CPZ for the entire day. The stories of paper nightmares are all history, its done online or by phone.

I am not quite sure see how 30 seconds of typing a date and reg number to give your visitor all day parking and the ability to park locally and not spend hours failing to find a space is 'hell'.

[Sue]

Apologies if this point has already been made, but surely a large part of the current perceived problem is due to skips and builders' vehicles?

Once every home in East Dulwich has had every possible extension and been gentrified till it can be gentrified no more, the skips and builders will move elsewhere and there will be more available parking places :))

[Bobby P]

worldwiser Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The 'hell' you speak of is how most Londoners

> live. I fail to see how the good people of ED

> wouldn't cope along with them.

But my question would be: why on earth should we, when most of us have no problem parking at all and don't want to add all these hassles and expenses to our daily lives?

I had similar experiences to those listed above when I lived under a CPZ. While making no difference to parking, it added major extra stress in all sorts of situations, and wasted considerable time challenging unfair parking tickets etc. (usually successfully, but only after having to go and retrieve the car from the pound, pay for the privilege, and harangue the head of the Council for weeks on end with letter after letter).

Honestly, asking to live under a CPZ is akin to being a turkey voting for Christmas. Those who haven't experienced this particularly pernicious form of urban aggravation should at least consider the many stories of those who actually have, before they usher in a permanent and irreversible regime they (and anyone else they catch in their net) can never escape from.

[mikeb]

I believe the link below is to the very first CPZ discussion on the EDF in 2007.

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,13019

Maybe we should have some sort of birthday celebration after Easter?

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

My road is on there and there is always a parking space. I?m against CPZ.

worldwiser Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Crawthew Grove, Frogley Road, Archdale Road,

> Crystal Palace Road, North Cross Road, Nutfield

> Road, Spurling Road, Matham Grove.. that's just

> for starters!

[Sue]

DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My road is on there and there is always a parking

> space. I?m against CPZ.

>

>

> worldwiser Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Crawthew Grove, Frogley Road, Archdale Road,

> > Crystal Palace Road, North Cross Road, Nutfield

> > Road, Spurling Road, Matham Grove.. that's just

> > for starters!

I live around that area, and I rarely have a problem parking, even despite all the skips and tradespeople.

Maybe two or three times in a year I have to park in an adjacent road, but it isn't a big deal unless I have heavy stuff to unload, and then I either double park whilst I unload it, or unload it later when I can park outside my house.

[Bobby P]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > > Crawthew Grove, Frogley Road, Archdale Road,

> > > Crystal Palace Road, North Cross Road,

> Nutfield

> > > Road, Spurling Road, Matham Grove.. that's

> just

> > > for starters!

>

> I live around that area, and I rarely have a

> problem parking, even despite all the skips and

> tradespeople.

>

> Maybe two or three times in a year I have to park

> in an adjacent road, but it isn't a big deal

> unless I have heavy stuff to unload, and then I

> either double park whilst I unload it, or unload

> it later when I can park outside my house.

Interesting to have the view of someone who lives there on these particular roads, where others some claim a 'problem'. I can't help but wonder if their tolerance for the realities of urban living is just much smaller, eg. not being able always to park right near their front door constitutes an inconvenience worthy of drastic action.

It's just interesting how, on exactly the same roads, some people (such as Sue here) have clearly described their parking norm and believe that most people would reasonably infer from her description no issue, whereas others perceive it differently (but so far without describing exactly what issues they face that they think are aberrant).

Does anyone conceive of Sue's description (also my experience on Melbourne) as a serious parking issue requiring a CPZ? If so, then we are clearly looking at very different standards of tolerance.

[negative equity]

JIMLAD - whats your 9-5?

[negative equity]

jimlad48

YOU'RE A BLATANT SHILL

A person engaged in covert advertising. The shill attempts to spread buzz by personally endorsing the product in public forums with the pretense of sincerity, when in fact he is being paid for his services.

[Sue]

negative equity Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> jimlad48

> YOU'RE A BLATANT SHILL

> A person engaged in covert advertising. The shill

> attempts to spread buzz by personally endorsing

> the product in public forums with the pretense of

> sincerity, when in fact he is being paid for his

> services.

Er, what?

Interesting first post, negative equity .....

ETA: Having read the OP again, I see where you may be coming from. Would you like to expand?

[ED_moots]

milk76 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well I am delighted that the new 2hr CPZ is

> coming in. Our streets near the station voted in

> favour at the last consultation. It was the

> streets more than 300M from the station that swung

> the vote heavily against a CPZ previously. There

> are 19 commuter cars right now on

> Abbotswood/Talbot! In addition six that I

> recognise on St Francis, admittedly there are

> probably more there but It is not my street so I

> can't be sure. I regularly ride the train back out

>

> I just feel sorry for Derwent Grove, Melbourne et

> al who were not offered the chance this time.

> Hopefully you guys will get the option soon. I

> guess this new portal will at least track interest

> in your streets.

I live at the north end of melbourne Grove, don't know where else in ED the parking pressures would be greater. Close to station, business bays down one end, double yellows on bends and corners, many converted flats (multiple car ownership in a small footprint), dropped curbs etc etc.

Yet still I find the parking opportunities perfectly reasonable for zone 2 in London. There will be a problem if you have to leave your house during the day but a midday CPZ probably wouldn't help that imo.

At the moment I would vote against a CPZ because it removes flexibility from the system and I don't believ it would deliver all the benefits some people perceive. Although the personal costs as they stand are manageable, what's to prevent cash strapped councils from upping the cost over time?!

When the giant charter school opens its gates on Jarvis road there will be more restrictions and loss of approx 10 spaces and probably more road markings, some parents will drive their kids to school the hop on the train to work and there is hardly any parking for staff (100+) on site. We'd need to reassess then.

For now, better the devil you know I reckon.

[James Barber]

I've created an online survey to capture the views of those for and against a CPZ.

What we have found historically is many want a CPZ. The council then runs a public consultation at great cost. At that point people have come out against a CPZ and it has not proceeded.

The most recent experience was at the northern end of Crystal Palace Road.

So this is a genuine attempt to take temperature check on views - https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/KGT2WZR

[nxjen]

James has neglected to say that those who complete the survey may (will) be contacted by the LibDems in future. Just trying to collect your details people.

[kford]

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> James has neglected to say that those who complete

> the survey may (will) be contacted by the LibDems

> in future. Just trying to collect your details

> people.

They know everyone in the ward from the electoral roll anyway.

[nxjen]

By completing the survey they will gain more information about you other than name and address and begin to create a mini profile. To check whether respondents live locally they do not need an email address or phone number which are requested in the survey

[Siduhe]

kford Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

They know everyone in the ward from the electoral roll anyway.

Does that include people who have opted out of having their electoral roll information shared?

It's disappointing for me that the only way to participate in this survey is to give away your personal data for electoral use - something I choose not to do with any political party.

It would be good practice to put a direct opt-out button in for those who want to participate in the survey but not then be contacted by the Lib Dems. There are no details given in the survey as to who to contact if you don't want your data to be used so the offer to "opt out at any time by contacting us" is next to useless. In the current environment where it's becoming clear just how much people are trying to use and abuse personal data for political gain, I'm really surprised you'd set the survey up this way James.

[Cardelia]

The only compulsory questions are your address (which they have already) and the first three questions, which are the key point of the survey. If you don't want to give additional details then you don't need to.

[nxjen]

Question 6 that requests personal details has an asterisk besides it which I assume means compulsory

[Jenny1]

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Question 6 that requests personal details has an

> asterisk besides it which I assume means

> compulsory

Well I filled in the survey and successfully submitted it without my email or phone details (but with address - which as Cardelia says - they already have on the electoral role). So not 'compulsory', no.

[Jenny1]

Siduhe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> kford Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> They know everyone in the ward from the electoral

> roll anyway.

>

> Does that include people who have opted out of

> having their electoral roll information shared?

Yes.

>

> It's disappointing for me that the only way to

> participate in this survey is to give away your

> personal data for electoral use - something I

> choose not to do with any political party.

>

This is not the case. See above.

[BrandNewGuy]

That's a poor first question:

"1. Do you, or your visitors, find parking where you live difficult?

Yes - all the time

Yes - Monday to Fridays

Yes - weekends only

No never"

What about 'Sometimes, but it doesn't unduly bother me'? I guess I'll just go for "No never"

[Jacqui5254]

This survey is going to get lost amongst these posts. Shouldn't it have a seperate thread?

[Penguin68]

As a matter of fact, by providing this information with your address etc., you are authorising them to contact you for the purposes of electioneering etc. on phone and e-mail. This transcends their rights to send postal material or to leaflet at the door step.

The key 'dangerous' assumption made here is that the ED forum members are in any way a representative sample of ED residents. I have seen no evidence of this. Additionally opt-in surveys such as this almost inevitably attract polarised views - so forum members without axes to grind will tend to ignore such a questionnaire. The survey will most likely simply tell the Lib Dems whether the Forum has more partizan pro or anti CPZ-ers without giving a representative view of ED members, let-alone ED residents.

Such surveys run by the council are focused on those who are actually and currently being threatened (or excited) by such a proposal. That sense of immediacy is not inherent in this survey.

The survey fails to ask whether the respondent already lives in a CPZ (and of course does not then check whether they are happy to do so). I am not sure that any analysis would be done to exclude those in CPZs from the survey results, or to separate their responses. One simple question would have allowed that analysis to be easily undertaken. Nor does it ask, for current non CPZ residents whether they have lived in a CPZ in the past, to inform their responses.

The survey also fails to ask whether the respondent already has off-street parking (I have, for 3-4 vehicles at a pinch) which again will influence any response.

The fee question in the survey does not indicate that these fees may change, and indeed that there is no legislation to cap or control such fees in the future.

The questionnaire fails to ask about disability or any other issue (care) which might influence responses.

It asks nothing about life stage (there is an age question but, in itself, this gives no valuable information).

The questionnaire fails to ask which ward now, and after May, the respondent will live in. Although this is derivable from the address, it again is awkward to do so and would have been far more easily uncovered directly by the survey itself. This is relevant as regards informing relevant future ward councillors as to views within their wards.

If you want to complete this questionnaire then I suggest under Q9 (other comments) you add I do not want to be contacted by phone or e-mail by the Liberal Democrats if that is your wish. This will/ should obviate the list building element of the questionnaire - your name and postal address being available already to political parties. I have not tried the questionnaire myself yet to know if you can submit if you don't complete the phone and e-mail sections, which would be another way of achieving this.

I write as a former member of the Market Research Society (MRS) who in a past life both commissioned ?10s of millions of market research annually and later taught marketing at a University.

[Jenny1]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have not

> tried the questionnaire myself yet to know if you

> can submit if you don't complete the phone and

> e-mail sections, which would be another way of

> achieving this.

>

You can. See above.