Goose Green councillors - how can we help?

[Penguin68]

I agree that cycling should be equally promoted as a form of active travel

Remembering (I would hope) that a significant number of people may be excluded from cycling through age or infirmity - particularly relevant in the ward you used to represent which is hilly and does not replicate the flat plains of northern Southwark. It should not be promoted to the detriment of those who cannot, or choose not, to 'benefit' from it. Keen cyclists I know in SE22 still chose in bad weather (the winter) not to cycle, or may have been scared through bad experiences to stop. After my arm was twice broken (when I was much younger and on two wheels) I chose discretion as being the better part of valour. I doubt whether I would be alone in such a decision.

[jamesmcash]

Hi Penguin68

Absolutely. We need to encourage a range of different forms of active and non active travel so that there are options available for everyone.

Best wishes

James

[rendelharris]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> I agree that cycling should be equally promoted as

> a form of active travel

>

> Remembering (I would hope) that a significant

> number of people may be excluded from cycling

> through age or infirmity - particularly relevant

> in the ward you used to represent which is hilly

> and does not replicate the flat plains of northern

> Southwark. It should not be promoted to the

> detriment of those who cannot, or choose not, to

> 'benefit' from it. Keen cyclists I know in SE22

> still chose in bad weather (the winter) not to

> cycle, or may have been scared through bad

> experiences to stop. After my arm was twice broken

> (when I was much younger and on two wheels) I

> chose discretion as being the better part of

> valour. I doubt whether I would be alone in such a

> decision.

But if safe and segregated cycle provision is available, people may be encouraged back onto bicycles, to the benefit of their own health and the environment - I know several people who wouldn't have dreamed of cycling in London ten years ago who are now very happy cycle commuters due to the superhighways.

Each to their own re cycling in winter of course - personally I long ago realised I'd be warmer riding at a good pace with suitable clothing for half an hour than I would be standing still on a windblown railway platform for half an hour waiting for a train to battle its way through half an inch of snow!

[Penguin68]

But if safe and segregated cycle provision is available, people may be encouraged back onto bicycles, to the benefit of their own health and the environment - I know several people who wouldn't have dreamed of cycling in London ten years ago who are now very happy cycle commuters due to the superhighways.

Each to their own re cycling in winter of course - personally I long ago realised I'd be warmer riding at a good pace with suitable clothing for half an hour than I would be standing still on a windblown railway platform for half an hour waiting for a train to battle its way through half an inch of snow!

Whilst my second broken arm was caused by an uninsured driver in a stolen vehicle coming out of a side street without looking (and knocking me clear across the Strand), the first was caused when I came round a bend and straight into a pile of rotten fruit dumped in the roadway - I slipped and fell awkwardly. Cycleways would not have helped me there.

Friends who chose not to cycle in the winter do so less because of inclement weather per se but because this leads to adverse road conditions (ice or to pooled water) which can obscure pot holes etc. making cycling more hazardous. Most are robust enough (and have enough bad weather clothing) to cope with rain and chill on its own.

[goldilocks]

Thank you James

A quick fix would be a communication to all schools in the borough that any active travel including cycling can be counted. The week starts tomorrow btw. I?m also not alone in finding this confusing initiative from the council, other families I know who cycle to school are equally as perplexed by the specific exclusion! Appreciate anything you can do to help - a) with this week and b) with any future initiatives

jamesmcash Wrote:

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

> Hi Goldilocks

>

> I agree that cycling should be equally promoted as

> a form of active travel. Let me look into this for

> you and see what I can do.

>

> Best wishes

> James

[Sue]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

the first was caused

> when I came round a bed and straight into a pile

> of rotten fruit dumped in the roadway - I slipped

> and fell awkwardly.

Those blooming beds, eh!

:))

[Penguin68]

Thank you, now amended...

[rendelharris]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Friends who chose not to cycle in the winter do so

> less because of inclement weather per se but

> because this leads to adverse road conditions (ice

> or to pooled water) which can obscure pot holes

> etc. making cycling more hazardous. Most are

> robust enough (and have enough bad weather

> clothing) to cope with rain and chill on its own.

Fair points though one of the great advantages of segregated cycle provision is that without motorised traffic they don't develop potholes, or at least I've never encountered any.

[Penguin68]

though one of the great advantages of segregated cycle provision is that without motorised traffic they don't develop potholes, or at least I've never encountered any

But to get to, or from, segregated cycleways you will need to cycle on side, and even main, roads - those around us in ED - last year certainly - were in a disgraceful state.

[jamesmcash]

Hi Goldilocks

Could you tell me which school your daughter attends? Feel free to contact me by email if it is easier.

Best wishes

James

[Rockets]

James,

What are your thoughts on the CPZ discussion that has been ongoing for some time now on this forum and throughout your ward. Your ward is the one most directly impacted and the whole consultation process seems to be utterly chaotic and geared towards justifying a decision that has already been made. Today, for example, I spoke to a shop owner that had not received any of the consultation documents nor did they know that there had been a meeting for shop owners earlier this week. I told him about the drop in session today and he was going to make his way there. It appears not everyone?s voice is being heard.

It seems there has not been the proper due diligence given to this project, the consultation documents are full of inaccurate and misleading claims that have no bearing on reality and many are concerned that the council is trying (again) to railroad plans through that do not properly address the unique nature of Lordship Lane and that these plans will ultimately damage the uniqueness of the area we all call home.

There is a lot of local opposition to these plans - the long lists of signatures in most shops along the Lane attest to this - and the fear is that the council will just power ahead with a plan that seems motivated purely by revenue generation.

What is your position?

[Zak]

Hi James,

Reading the previous post prompts me to ask you some questions about how the current opaque consultation and decision making process which is being carried out, in contrast to the previous democratic East Dulwich CPZ Consultation in 2011/12

Judging by what appears in the consultation documentation, the decision making process which Southwark are adopting, following the end of the consultation, is barely, if at all,open to public scrutiny:

- The Officers analyse the consultation results

- They present a internal report to the responsible Cabinet Member - Richard Livingstone - with their recommendations and

- The cabinet member makes a decision about what should happen in terms of proceeding with the CPZ.

Compare this with what happened last time, in 2011/12, when Southwark carried a CPZ consultation in East Dulwich:

- The officers analysed the results

- They produced a report which was a public document (see attached), for everyone to see and discuss &

- The results in the report were formally discussed and debated at the relevant Community Council meetings with councillors before any decision was taken.

Councillor Peter John even wrote a letter pledging not to implement a CPZ unless there was a majority in favour of it (see attached).

There wasn't a majority in 2011/2 and the CPZ wasn't implemented.

In view of this departure from a democratic decision making process:

- Can you tell us, why a similarly transparent/democratic decision making process has not been adopted this time?

- Will you undertake to raise the matter with the Leader ( Peter John) and press for the results of the consultation to be made public and properly discussed through the relevant Community Councils before, any decisions about implementing CPZs are made?

[The Nappy Lady]

James,

At the local business meeting with the council last Tuesday re the CPZ consultation I raised a question as to why the business vehicle permit rate is five times more expensive than a residents parking permit & was told that this rate is set by central government.

After further investigation I am led to understand that whilst that answe was true, what we were NOT told is that this is the MAXIMUM amount that can be charged and that every council has the ability to reduce that rate as they see fit.

Given that Southwark council claims that it wishes to work with local businesses, and to support them I would like you to explain the rationale behind the business permits being so much more expensive than the residents permits. As the cost of the permits is (we are told) intended to cover the cost of implementing and running the CPZ, with any surplus being used only for road repairs etc it seems to me that the amount the council would be making, if all permits were equal at ?125 per vehicle would be more than enough with many thousands to spare.Why are local businesses who bring revenue and employment to the area being penalised?

Please speak to whoever you need to in order to be able to clarify this and if need be to explain why the cost of the business permits cannot be reduced.

Thank you.

[Wil72]

Hi James,

As per the current thread on the Forum regarding the Proposed CPZ in East Dulwich,

Please can you explain how you are getting involved as you will see that the residents have strong suspicions that Southwark Council are going to push this through regardless of what the residents of East Dulwich actually want.

There was a shambolic 'drop in' meting on Saturday that you and your colleagues should have been at.

Why weren't you?

These hugely important decisions should be monitored and held to account by someone unbiased, not left to the Council to push through to create parking revenue.

Please get involved asap and tell us what you are all doing? on that thread!!

[cella]

Edited

[Abe_froeman]

Labour councillors aren't going to be interested in stopping a proposal that taxes rich middle class car owners and capitalist business people.

[singalto]

Wil72, I absolutely agree with you.

[TheArtfulDogger]

James

Based on abe_froemans point in the CPZ discussion, concerning the proposed spineway along crystal palace road, what are the councillors (who we, the public, elected to represent us) going to do about it being pushed through despite huge objections ?

Or are you just going to roll over and not represent us?

Start of Quote

"On the point about whether or not Southwark will actually listen to the outcome of the consultation, this may be instructive. It's another project in East Dulwich that will result in the loss of a large number of car parking spaces...

"You Said

We received 463 responses: 28% were 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied', 63% were 'dissatisfied' or 'very dissatisfied'.

..."

The scheme is going ahead as planned. That's what we are dealing with here.

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/eastdulwichtopeckham/

End of quote

[tiddles]

Is it me or is there a deafening silence......

[Hemingway]

I've emailed them, heard nothing.

[MarkT]

James,

concerning the proposed CPZs, you made the following statement on this Forum a while ago:

?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.?

Your statement has been quoted, as authoritative, at least twice in postings on this forum, but the evidence that previous CPZ Decisions were indeed all or nothing leads some of us to doubt that this one will indeed be any different.

James, can confirm/clarify whether sub sections of the proposed CPZ might be excluded on a popular vote?

[singalto]

Can you imagine the chaos if some streets have a CPZ and others don?t?

[Abe_froeman]

He's been quite busy online, just not on here.

Maybe he needs some time to think about the issue.

I wonder if our other councillors have expressed a view...

[Hemingway]

well, his last activity was today so he's definitely logged on and I suspect looked at this thread....let's see how much of a democratic socialists he is. Our local councillors, not just James, really need to not just ignore their constituents.

[Abe_froeman]

He's not a democratic socialist, he is a Marxist - it says so on his twitter profile.