Goose Green councillors - how can we help?

[ED_moots]

"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."

Hi James, thanks for the reply answering part of my question. Could you confirm the substance of the deputation from VRA please? If this was minuted please steer me to a link.

Furthermore, most of the hardstandings (which have dropped curbs) on MG North do not fit a normal family car and are not used. Even if the proposed double yellow lines are reduced to 1mtr the impact will be a loss of around 6 car spaces. If the council implements more mixed use bays then more residents parking will be lost.

To whom should I submit an FOI request for all the data returned from the consultation?

[redjam]

Given the overwhelming majority of ED residents are clearly against the CPZ, it seems obvious that - if we are forced to have it in the area around the station - the zone should:

a) include only the smallest possible number of streets, i.e. none of the streets that voted against it should be rounded up into the zone, and

b) be operational for the shortest amount of time, i.e. 2 hours.

Otherwise all the surrounding streets will suffer from the negative effects of the zone, as will the local traders with the resulting knock-on effect.

Honestly, my faith in politics is at an all-time low what with the debacle of Brexit and this on the local level. When you've got a 69% majority voting against a CPZ - 69%!! - despite a consultation that was so biased in its wording that it was actually insulting, and not even including the thousands of signatures that the shopkeepers collected, how can the council POSSIBLY interpret that as a mandate to impose a CPZ on such a large area - including several streets that voted against it - for the whole day?

So James, yes please do fight to minimise the impacts of this zone on behalf of the majority of your voters if you can. Good luck.

[Penguin68]

James

I have now had a chance of reading full details of the council's planned garden waste scheme. It appears that in future even for those paying the ?30 annual fee only a single brown bin of garden waste will be collected weekly. Any additional waste (in paid-for paper sacks) will have to be collected only by subsequent special arrangement with the council. My garden (and I'm not alone in this) gets 'blitzed' on a monthly basis March-December - and at some times - e.g. autumn - I generate far more green waste in such a blitz than I can reasonably compost ( most of my garden would become a compost heap). In the past I have had as many as 10 paper bags filled in addition to my brown bin. At the moment all the waste is collected at once, meaning that there is no need for an additional collection (with the costs that that entails). If residents are to either pay for sacks and/ or brown bin collection for garden waste surely the most efficient method of collection is to collect once a week from streets taking everything (which will have been paid for one way or another) at once. Otherwise my only conclusion is that the council is interested in reducing organic recycling - or encouraging people to e.g. pave or landscape more of their gardens away. Neither seem to me to be a 'green' approach.

We are being asked to pay for a service which was previously covered by Council Tax, and in paying for it, it is also being reduced. Taking away with one hand and then taking away with the other. And you wonder why we are cynical about politicians local and national?

[Sporthuntor]

Hi James

Thanks for coming back - I did not read your note properly (sorry about that), glad you will push for the reduction in CPZ area so that contiguous streets that did not back it are excluded and hours of operation reduced. I really hope you can get the Tooley Street machine to accept what local residents and businesses want.

[Rockets]

James,

Thank you for your response.

The over-whelming majority of residents in East Dulwich, and particularly your ward, do not want the CPZ - that is abundantly clear - as they are worried about the impact it will have on the area as a whole.

One stat that stood out was that 25% of all respondents raised concerns about the impact on Lordship Lane. These responses were unprompted, as there was not a question asking this, and that is huge. The concerns are real and are being overlooked by you and the council.

We all knew the council would force a CPZ through and create a process to "justify" implementation. As Kissinger famously said to a group of media: "Has anyone got any questions for my answers", the council has created a process and consultation document to railroad a CPZ through, knowing full well that if they get a CPZ in one area this will create challenges in neighbouring areas and will help them justify future CPZ expansion.

The council carefully created a consultation document that deliberately did not ask whether people wanted it in the area - just their street. We all know if the question about a CPZ in the area had been asked the council would not be able to implement it - that's why it was not asked.

But I am not so sure it is a clear cut as I actually think the wording of the consultation may create issues for the council and further analysis of the results will be required.

For example, could you to address these questions:

- how was the undecided category determined - does that mean votes were equally split between for and against?

- 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? (I know you are trying to address this)

- 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?

- which two streets did not respond and do we know why they didn't respond?

- What have you done to champion the views of the traders represented in your ward?

The sense of frustration people feel is that we would have hoped that someone from the elected representatives in the ward would have taken a more pragmatic approach and say - we cannot impose a CPZ on the area - there is, bar a small cluster of streets within the VRA area, overwhelming sentiment that this is not what the area wants. The impact of any CPZ will be felt across the breadth of your ward and that is why people have campaigned so hard against it - they know that any CPZ in the area will be damaging.

From day one it has been clear you have supported the CPZ and have done little to champion the true feelings of the ward you represent. The traders have been consistent in their message that all of the local councillors have not shown any interest in their concerns and it was shocking watching the video of the council meeting how the VRA were given an enthusiastic round of applause by the councillors and yet the independent traders were not given such a rousing reception. It was clear to all from the body language in that room that we were heading for a CPZ in the area and the VRA were the shills to help it happen.

It is good to see you trying to get the size of the CPZ reduced but, to be honest, it feels like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. I think a lot of us just wish you had been more active from day one, had put party politics aside and had better represented the views your constituents.

[KidKruger]

Isn?t there a person in the area that can represent the residents? wishes ?

[first mate]

I find the stated aim to treat all residents wishes 'equally' so disingenuous. It is quite clear that even a small number of streets with all day CPZ will cause parking displacement at some point, leading to more CPZ at some point. The Council and Councillors know this... it is simply a matter of how long achieving full CPZ takes them.

[rollflick]

It's funny how many people claim their opposition to a CPZ is driven by concern for the shops on Lordship Lane when most of those in the consultation who expressed an opinion opposed the measures to increase bus priority. According to the 2015 LBSU study, almost 50% *more* people travelled to Lordship Lane by bus than by car. At a time when our bus services are under threat, bus drivers reported delays here due to parking and in a borough where the majority don't own a car, hindering bus access is not going to help the street's viability.

The council did a really good job in the consultation by seeking the views of the wider area beyond the parking hotspots, having listened to those (disclosure: including me) who highlighted how they failed to consult or listen to those affected by displacement from the Dog Kennel Hill zone. But however many times Cllr McAsh points out again on this thread or elsewhere that this was never a vote but a consultation as part of a parking study, sadly it seems some will never listen.

On his question 1, there's a strong case to include the streets between North Cross Road and Crystal Palace Road, where there was also resident support. Otherwise that area, which is still walkable to ED station, will have two new CPZs on either side and inevitably face serious pressure. There's a strong case including the northern bit of Crystal Palace Road and Oakhurst Grove/Solway Road north of the road closure. Although there isn't currently resident support for these, the latter will face displacement from the Peckham West zone, which it should have been considered part of. Meanwhile the Crystal Palace/ED Road is the most dangerous junction for cycling on all of the proposed spine route (at least on roads controlled by Southwark) and only by increasing the length of the cycle lane significantly can it be made safer.

On question 2, some people will have wanted a CPZ to operate longer in the evening (as some have pointed out in this Forum, there are parking pressures then) so it does seem the best approach is to go for 8.30-6.30 as proposed.

If I have any criticism it's that the consultation process seems to have failed to engage those who currently or potentially travel by bus or cycle, even if non-resident. The more people that travel by bus and cycle, the more viable and safer our bus and cycle routes are.

[Sporthuntor]

Crimes how much did the council pay you to write that rollflick? Absolutely nothing you say here is supported by the statistics. Hold on...did you write the consultation documents? That would make sense...

[kristymac1]

James,

In relation to the upcoming changes to collection of graden/food waste please can you confirm whethe Southwark Council combines garden waste and food waste once collected? (either at the curb side or back at the depot)

If so, it seems utterly ludicrous that when I choose to subscribe to the ?30/year brown bin collection that I will not be able to put food waste in there as well as garden waste (which is the system now), instead I will have to have ANOTHER plastic bin in my front garden just for food waste!

If the two compostable components are not combined at the curb side - does this really mean that Southwark will have 2 collection lorries attending the same property every week for the collection of compostable waste?

I am reasonably happy to pay the ?30/year charge for brown bin collection - I am certainly not happy at the seemingly ill-thought through process and a complete waste of resources providing additional food waste bins and separate lorry collections - seriously, this is proper 'back of a fag packet' stuff and is an embarrassingly obvious waste of much needed Council resources.

[Hemingway]

Rollflick

On his question 1, there's a strong case to include the streets between North Cross Road and Crystal Palace Road, where there was also resident support.

er, where's the evidence for this, the majority oppose in that area?

"On question 2, some people will have wanted a CPZ to operate longer in the evening (as some have pointed out in this Forum, there are parking pressures then)"- Evidence? "some people will have wanted", you know this or do you mean you want?

"so it does seem the best approach is to go for 8.30-6.30 as proposed." based on what? yor view?

[Chuckd]

I totally agree with Rollflick

The parking restrictions on Melbourne Grove side of Lordship Lane will mean further pressure on the Crawthew Grove/Crystal Palace Road side of Lordship Lane as visitors seek out free parking. The north end of Crystal Palace Road is already pressured due to the gym/pool. When they redeveloped the leisure centre they made no parking provision for visitors. Sunday night after 6pm when the leisure centre is shut the road is full of parking spaces. If they are going to introduce parking zones they should introduce them on both sides and take into account the leisure centre hours also for those roads adjacent.

[Jacqui5254]

All this so that a few people who live near the station can 'supposedly' park nearer to their homes.....???!!!!

[Abe_froeman]

Well that and the ?125 per car per annum, plus parking tickt and pay and display income the council will gouge from constituents and their visitors.

[Penguin68]

I think we can reasonably be certain that the chosen method of implementation will be the one that places major parking stress on adjacent roads - this is part of the 'spread (by which I don't mean alleviate) the pain, increase the revenue, spit on car owners' policy of the council.

[Rockets]

Rollflick and Chuckd - don't you see - the council has been, and continues to play, the CPZ jigsaw game? They put one piece in place here and they know that soon they will have to put another piece in there and before you know it everyone has a CPZ and then they'll start charging more and more for the permits and the meters and then everyone will realise what a folly it is and benefits no-one other than the council and their revenue generation plans.

That's why so many of us are opposing it with all our might; putting the needs of the many and the vibrancy of our area ahead of the needs and wants of the few.

[Juno70]

James,

I think the proposed area is way too large and the parking times too long. It needs to be reconsidered, reduce the area and reduce the parking times and maybe this is the compromise.

I responded not to have it at all and this is my preferred option first and foremost.

[jamesmcash]

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

Two sentences stick out from that very lengthy essay above.

" Its purpose was always to identify ...a controlled parking zone and implement it...""

This is entriely unsurprising. [/quote/]

Some of my posts on here are indeed quite lengthy. I am doing my best to answer as many questions as I can, clearly and fully. I am sorry if they bore you.

Your quote above cuts out some crucial words from my sentence: ?Its purpose was always to identify [if and] where there was appetite for a controlled parking zone and implement it there.? Your shortened version makes it sound like residents? views are not important. My full version makes it clear that the consultation responds to demand for a CPZ. I make no apology for this approach whatsoever: where residents want a CPZ, I think the council should facilitate this; where they do not this should be respected.

ed_moots

We have been communicating by email, but for the benefit of everyone else who wanted to know what was said at Council Assembly, the whole meeting was live-streamed and a recording is available on YouTube:

redjam

Thanks a lot for your comments, I am pleased that you support my suggestions.

sporthuntor

No worries, these mistakes happen. I?m pleased that we are on the same page after all. I hope that you now no longer think that I am arrogantly detached from reality, that I should be embarrassed of myself, or that I am treating people as though they are stupid.

Rockets

You are absolutely correct that the overwhelming majority of people in East Dulwich, and in my ward, do not want a CPZ. I will ensure, therefore, that the overwhelming majority of people in East Dulwich and in my ward do live in one. However, I will strive to balance this with the wishes of those who do want one. There are some streets where 90%+ (even 100% on smaller streets) want a CPZ. As I have made very clear above, and consistently since last last September, the consultation is not an all-or-nothing approach, it looks for where there might be demand for a CPZ and responds to that demand. Achieving this balance requires that I look carefully at the boundaries of a proposed CPZ. This is what I am seeking feedback on here.

One stat that stood out was that 25% of all respondents raised concerns about the impact on Lordship Lane. These responses were unprompted, as there was not a question asking this, and that is huge. The concerns are real and are being overlooked by you and the council.

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.

That's why so many of us are opposing it with all our might; putting the needs of the many and the vibrancy of our area ahead of the needs and wants of the few.

Nice reference.

KidKruger

Isn?t there a person in the area that can represent the residents? wishes ?

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

I find the stated aim to treat all residents wishes 'equally' so disingenuous. It is quite clear that even a small number of streets with all day CPZ will cause parking displacement at some point, leading to more CPZ at some point. The Council and Councillors know this... it is simply a matter of how long achieving full CPZ takes them.

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

[Abe_froeman]

Hi James

Apologies for quoting you selectively but you are in politics, so it is par for your course now!

I am pleased to hear you now have the full dataset . Please could you confirm where we can access this information too?

For many of the reasons expressed on this subject already, I would be very interested to see for myself how well the published report accurately reflects that data.

[ED_moots]

Hi James

Thanks for your responses. Until the data can be shared please can you answer a specific query about the responses from Melbourne Grove North.

How many respondents who were for a CPZ came from the same address? I. E. How many distinct households are in favour?

I am assuming that most properties own one car so the perceived parking issues are singular per household. Therefore it would be unfair to give undue weight to, say, a family of 8, who want a CPZ versus a single occupier who doesn't.

[first mate]

Thanks James for your responses,

You suggest that parking displacement caused by a CPZ for roads closest to the station could be mitigated by people choosing instead to stop using their cars in favour of public and other forms of transport. However, this seems unlikely if those closest to the station (including major bus route into town) have asked for CPZ so they can keep using their cars?

It has already been noted that perhaps those choosing to live close to a station might expect a little more pressure on parking- we all know people commute. Nonetheless, it would seem that these residents have found a way to park, albeit wih difficulty, or they would not be current car owners and asking for CPZ? Many of us have long accepted that it will not always be possible to park in our own street, let alone outside our house.

Finally, the general perception is that the council is placing as much pressure on parking as it lawfully can. One example is the contentious mass double yellow lines.

Why not simply admit that one way or another, however long it takes, the current administration is set on mass CPZ?

[Rockets]

James,

Many thanks for your responses....I will take the slight typo in your response as a grammatical error rather than the mother of all Freudian slips!! ;-) And I quote....

You are absolutely correct that the overwhelming majority of people in East Dulwich, and in my ward, do not want a CPZ. I will ensure, therefore, that the overwhelming majority of people in East Dulwich and in my ward do live in one.

But your response highlights the issue so many people have with the process and "result". Whether any particular street is in the CPZ or not, all the residents in your ward will be impacted by the CPZ. Those people who voted against it will have their streets blighted by the impact from the small number of streets that voted for it. There will be displacement and more parking pressure on those streets without the CPZ. So, the council's decision will impact everyone in East Dulwich and that's why many of us want our elected representatives to do more and represent the views of the majority and take a stand against it.

The concerns on the impact to Lordship Lane are real and being deliberately overlooked by the council. I know you are suggesting to reduce the number of roads having a CPZ but, to be fair, that's like asking someone if they want to be punched in the face by both fists or just one.....and the oldest political trick in the book ;-)

I think it is imperative that the council realises the detailed results of the consultation to everyone so we can all see what the true picture is.

There is still an underlying concern that the council has railroaded these plans through against the will of the majority of people who will be impacted. And that the council has done everything in its power to get the result it wanted - I have yet to hear a response from the council on why the double-yellow lines were extended to the full legal limit months before the CPZ consultation was initiated. To most of us it just looks like an attempt to create parking pressure to help get people to vote for a CPZ.

8,000 people signed a petition in an attempt to save Lordship Lane and that has been given but lip service by the council. Add to those 8,000 the 68% who voted against the CPZ and there are a lot of disgruntled voters out there who feel local councillors are putting party politics ahead of the needs of their constituents. One can only presume you feel secure with your majority or you have been promised a plum job should you lose your seat in the next council elections........

BTW will you and the other councillors for the area be at the public meeting on the 27th?

[Mrs D]

James, I couldn?t see anything in the interim report in regards to the proposed double yellow lines on the middle of Crystal Palace rd - we have managed very well without them for all these years so why are they needed? It reduces parking by at least 5 spaces and I think it may just mean that cars increase their speed if the road is wider.

And whilst I am at it - Why not focus on safety and sort out a crossing for kids crossing Whately or Underhill rd instead on their way to Heber or Harris? Current lollipop man is not allowed to help kids crossing there and it?s really not a safe crossing.

[tmcoleman]

Hi James

I am in your GG ward but fall within the proposed Peckham West parking zone. You kindly emailed me back, sharing the PW consultation raw data for question 10 on times of operation. The questionnaire gave four choices:

- All day (for example 8.30am to 6.30pm)

- Part day (for example 10am to 2pm)

- Two hours during the day (e.g 11am to 1pm)

- Other (please specify)

I?m confused by the conclusion drawn by the Council and disappointed that the complete data has not been publicly shared so have cut and pasted your email below:

**************

The breakdown of responses is as follows:

- All day: 34%

- 12-2pm: 29%

- Part of the day: 13%

- Other: 17%

- Did not answer: 7%

Of those who answered ?Other?, there was a mixture of responses including

- We do not want the parking zone

- None at all

- All day

- Two hours or part day

*************

My questions are:

1) Why have the combined responses for ?part day? and ?Two hours during the day? not been considered (as the Council did for the Denmark Hill CPZ!) and therefore a conclusion drawn that PW majority support ?less than full day??

2) Is [email protected] or [email protected] the correct person to direct emails to if want to challenge Council?s conclusion that majority support ?all day? Peckham West controls? Assume best to provide full name and address on any emails we send?

3) I see the previous Denmark Hill CPZ Report included the raw data with the recommendations. Please could you provide some rationale for the raw data having not been provided this time for both the ED and PW Reports?

Thank you

[Sporthuntor]

Hi James, bit of a disappointing response.

My comment about being arrogantly detached from reality was in response to your view that people thought the council were doing a good job, not the CPZ. I choose to maintain that view.

My "you should be embarrassed" comment was in reference to those within the council responsible for running the CPZ consultation. I maintain that view as well.

The comment about "treating people as though they are stupid" I'm sorry about, as per my earlier post.

Let's move on, but you might rethink your future approach to responding to an apology!