Goose Green councillors - how can we help?

[Rockets]

James,

Firstly let me say thank you for engaging with us all on this subject - I very much appreciate you are caught between a rock and a hard place on this one.

To address the prompted/unprompted discussion above my experience when door-stepped by a Labour representative a couple of years ago was that she asked if parking was a problem - I certainly didn't bring it up!

I think many of the issues local people have about this whole process is the way the consultation is being handled - a lot of people are feeling the CPZ is being forced upon them. It is obvious the council has an agenda to roll-out CPZs across the borough and we all know this has nothing to do with the benefit of local people but revenue. Add to this the fact the council extended double-yellows (only within the proposed CPZ area) to remove a large number of parking spaces you can see why people are somewhat sceptical about the motives. Many people I have spoken to are resigned to the fact that the council will force a CPZ upon East Dulwich whether people want it or not.

And when I look at the way the consultation process is being handled it merely validates the position of those who believe that the council is creating a scenario to validate their decision to roll it out.

- The prospectus failed to reach many of those impacted - to be fair I think you get a free pass on this one as those of us who live in the area know how horrendous the Royal mail is at the moment in the area.

- The prospectus is so biased towards a CPZ and full of erroneous stats that just don't stand-up to any scrutiny that it is laughable. It is blatant propaganda that should not be being shared as part of any "democratic" process.

- You say the council is asking the questions widely but you are only mailing (or trying to mail) the roads directly covered by the CPZ - yet the impact stretches far more widely than that. Surely the views of people living one road the other side of the Barry Road boundary should be gathered too as they will likely be directly impacted by it.

- Unless you receive the mailing you have no idea where to actually register you comments and it is very difficult to find on the Southwark website. When you get there you can register the street upon which you live and if you do not live on one of the streets impacted you have to put "Other" which makes people think that you will only consider comments from those people within the zone.

- Thousands of people who use Lordship Lane have signed a petition yet these will not be considered.

- The drop-in meeting was shambolic (some say deliberately so) and people were not allowed to register their opposition to the plans.

And there are plenty more examples quoted within this thread that validate the perception that the council is creating a scenario to justify its decision to roll-out a CPZ.

The sanguine amongst us on the thread understand the issues people have parking near their homes in parts of East Dulwich but are wise enough to realise a CPZ does not fix those problems - and certainly not in the way the council is currently planning. It might offer a temporary fix for the few but creates bigger issues for the many! (Sorry I couldn't resist ;-) )

[ed_pete]

James it'd be good to know:

1 - what the threshold of requests over what period triggers a consultation process at the expense of all council tax payers (at a time when local authorities are continually talking about reductions in central government funding).

2 - whether or not the council has confirmed the requestors (a) still live in the area (b) whether they still consider it an issue (they may now have a dropped kerb/osp arrangement)

3 - whether they can publish a map of where the requestors live. It would interesting to see how many live close to the station for example.

[AylwardS]

Regarding the East Dulwich CPZ someone has put the links from the initial, informal consultation on the Dog Kennel Hill Zone. The zone did not go ahead as it was proposed at that time, but was amended. The response rate may have been low but the option was there to respond and changes were made to the design. I?ve not seen a post from anyone to say what the situation is in Grove Park now.

I checked the maps issued initially with the consultation for DKH and the revised maps and less yellow lines / more permit holder bays were included in Grove Park in the revised maps so if you have concerns about the yellow lines / mix of bays proposed for your road put that in your response and ask for changes the Council does listen. I?m sure Grove Park lost parking spaces as there are a lot of yellow lines on the plans - dropped kerbs? I know comments have been made that spaces will be lost because of yellow lines across dropped kerbs where visitors park with the householders permission but no yellow line means any vehicle can park there and not every driver is considerate. I saw a post on here from someone who lived by a school and couldn?t get their car off the drive as there was no restriction and parents parked there to take Johnny to school and when advised they were blocking them in the response was ?I?ll only be a couple of minutes?.

The report of the results of the consultation https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/4540/PDF%201_Dog%20Kennel%20Hill_Report_Final.pdf for Grove Park shows

* A difference of opinion from respondents on whether they wanted a zone

* A majority wanted the two hour zone - as introduced

* A majority wanted the zone to operate Monday to Friday - as introduced

There was a cock up when the DKH order was written which has now been corrected. I don?t know Grove Park but based on our part of the DKH zone I?d expect its better in the mornings, maybe not all day as it sounds like their issue is with parking for the hospital so its not commuter parking in the same way as here. It?s not possible for someone from outside the area to park all day as paid for parking is limited and the vehicle must move when the paid for time expires - see extract from order below

? (i) vehicles which have paid the parking charge of ?2.75 per hour (using 'Pay by Phone') may be left for up to two hours (provided no vehicle may return to a parking place on that same day), or (ii) vehicles issued with a valid residents' permit, valid business permit or valid visitors' permit may be left without time limit, between the hours of 11 am and 1 pm on Mondays to Fridays inclusive.

Located in GROVE PARK, the easternmost north-west to south-east arm, on the south-west side, at the side of No. 37 Grove Park (40 metres in length).?

I can only say the DKH zone has solved the problem of commuters parking all day near the station but that?s not the only consideration around Lordship Lane. If you think the issues raised for Grove Park are relevant to your road go down there between 11 and 1 and see what its like. Now the order has been corrected it can, and should be being enforced and that?s what you could expect from a 2 hour zone when its operating.

[singalto]

People who contact the council about the parking will complain about it but nobody is going to contact them to say things are fine. James,if you had ever knocked on my door, I might have said parking is a problem but I still don?t want a CPZ.

[The Nappy Lady]

?The business permit rates are benchmarked against other boroughs. Southwark's are cheaper than Lambeth, Islington, Hammersmith and Fulham, and Tower Hamlets. Furthermore, Westminster, City of London, and Kensington and Chelsea do not have business permits at all so local businesses have to pay the more expensive pay-per-hour rate.l

But again I ask, why should the businesses pay FIVE TIMES more for a permit than a resident does?

Businesses pay high business rates, I see no argument to justify why their parking permit should be higher than the residents permit? Saying it?s comparable to other bouroughs is, with all due respect not an acceptable argument (if I said your neighbor pays her cleaner ?50 an hour so you should too I?m sure you?d have something to say about it)!

We were told the cost of the permits is set in order to cover the cost of implementing & running the scheme.

Someone please do the maths for me the income will cover these costs many times over & yes, yes we know the surplus will be used for road repairs etc ....

So is the suggestion here that the local businesses DESERVE to contribute more to the scheme than the local residents do, and if so, why?

The shops & businesses make the area vibrant, they bring revenue to the area, they employ local people, they already contribute so much. I don?t understand the rationale, does anyone else?

Yet more proof, as if we need it, that the CPZ is nothing more than yet another money making, arbitrary tax on the local people & local businesses.

I?m sorry James, you haven?t answered my question at all.

[jamesmcash]

Dear all

MarkT:

I apologise if you feel I was being evasive. The requests on the doorstep and those submitted online are similar in that neither are the direct response to a question about parking; both require the resident to independently identify parking as an issue for them and to then decide to raise it. The Council does not routinely write to residents asking them to complete that form.

Regardless of the overall outcome of the consultation, I would be astonished if fewer than 100 people support the implementation of a CPZ. That's because fewer people indicate their support unprompted than do when directly asked.

Rockets

That?s interesting about your experience with a Labour activist a couple of years ago. Not my experience at all.

I take on board your points about the Council being clearly in favour of the CPZ being implemented. In a sense this is true - on a global level the Council?s policy is that CPZs are good because of their impact on air pollution and road safety. But at the same time our policy is also that they should only be implemented with majority support. So in a sense the consultation is in part an opportunity for the Council to persuade people that a CPZ is a good thing, whilst also recognising that it is down to the people to decide. I don?t think that this is undemocratic. However, I do agree that - regardless of your overall view on whether or no to implement - there will clearly be some people who will lose out from it, and perhaps these downsides should have been properly outlined. For me, it is a question of finding the right balance.

ed_pete

1) I do not think that there is a hard threshold because the consultations need to be consistent with officers? work plans. If lots of areas reached a threshold at the same time it would not be possible to run a consultation in all of them. So it is rather a question of balancing the number of requests with other demands on officers? time.

2) I am afraid I do not have any direct figures for this, but I assure you that there are plenty of people calling for this consultation. I receive countless emails from them.

3) It would break data protection rules to show exactly where they lived but your suspicion is indeed correct that the bulk of them live around the station.

AylwardS

Thanks for this, very interesting and helpful.

Singalto

Yes you are correct, I made this point in my initial post on the subject further up the thread.

?*Why is there a consultation*

The council has a policy of consulting on the introduction of a CPZ if residents call for one. There have been sections of the Goose Green area which have been very active in calling for this for some time. During the election campaign last year parking was the most commonly-raised local issue. Clearly, with no CPZ in place and no consultation ongoing the people raising it were almost universally those who supported the implentation of one. Although I am reltaively new to this post, I am told that this is the standard pattern: we councillors hear mostly from those who support a CPZ until a consultation happens, at which point we hear more from its opponents. This makes sense to me and it's why it's important to have a meaningful consultation.?

Molly/The Nappy Lady

One of the key points of the proposed CPZs is to have fewer parked cars on the roads, and to make it easier for residents to find parking spaces. This means balancing the needs of different road users: residents, customers of local businesses, and employees of local businesses. The calculation that has been made is that access to parking should come at a lower cost to local residents than the other groups. This is, in my view, totally reasonable given the alternatives that each group faces if they cannot park. If the latter two groups do not have a permit, or either will not or cannot pay for the hourly rate, then they can make the journey by another means of transport and leave their car at home. Whereas if a resident has no permit then they simply cannot have a car at all. So the consequences of not having a permit are much greater for residents than for employees and therefore it is right that their access to a permit is prioritised over that of other groups.

Best wishes

James

[ed26]

I completely agree with most of the recent thoughts in this thread. I was fairly open-minded about the CPZ but I have become very anti-CPZ in recent weeks due to the way in which it seems to be forced upon us. My thoughts...

- Unless Southwark can demonstrate that the scheme is cost-neutral (i.e. revenue will only be used to cover the cost of implementing and policing the CPZ) then I refuse to believe that this is anything but a revenue-making scheme.

- The consultation focuses purely on HOW the scheme should be implemented, not IF. I still want a say on how the scheme should be implemented if there's no choice, but I fear that my stats will show I am in favour of a particular approach

- I'm not convinced that the pollution and traffic in ED is caused by people driving to/from the area. I'd think that the majority is through traffic, or local residents hopping around town. A CPZ wouldn't reduce pollution from either type of traffic (and may increase it if it makes it easier for local residents to park around LSL). Has the Council published the results of its traffic surveys, etc?

- My experience of activists is that they ARE very pushy and I have been asked about my views on parking, although this was possibly just to try to extend the conversation when I was trying to get rid of her

- I'd like the Council to try to tackle the blatant parking abuse before inflicting a CPZ on everyone - lines of cars for sale, camper vans for hire, cars advertising man & van for hire, etc. I appreciate that a CPZ would solve this problem but that's the common sledgehammer and nut approach

[Jim1234]

One thing I haven't understood is whether, officially, the plans will be droped if the consultantion comes back with a majority against?

[The Nappy Lady]

James, I?m not talking about employees, I am talking about companies that HAVE to have vans in order to operate - eg without the vans the business would have to close. I know several businesses in ED that will be effected in this way.

So again, I don?t feel your explanation is acceptable.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that as an employee I cannot have a business permit for my car as obviously it is registered to my home address, not my workplace in ED. So to be clear that is absolutely not why I am pursuing this point.

However, it is the case that I am anxious about the cost of the business permits for the small independent company I work for.

If CPZ comes in I will have to reduce my hours and take a pay cut to allow myself the extra time needed to walk or bus to work and back, or take an effective pay cut by paying around ?30 a week or more to continue to work in the way I have for over 11 years. So either way I am facing stress, despite the fact I always manage to park within two minutes of work, five days a week, at varying times from 8am to 11am, and sometimes later if I?ve had to run errands. Strange then to consider CPZ is needed don?t you think?

[Rockets]

James,

Once again thank you for taking the time to respond.

I appreciate that the council is a fan of CPZs but, in the same way Brexit was sold to people on the basis of untruths, the council?s materials are full of examples and facts and figures that are deliberately misleading. It tries to present itself as balanced but is anything but. And we have had members of this forum presenting the stats in the consultation documentation as validation of the good CPZs do.

It seems to me that the majority of residents both in the affected area and beyond are against the CPZs but they also feel that the council will manipulate and distort the results to their advantage and will railroad the plans. Nothing about the consultation process, or the way it is being implemented, is reassuring them that this is anything but a done deal and that the council is doggedly pursuing an agenda of revenue generation ahead of needs of the local community.

The one fact that does stand up to scrutiny is that parking in East Dulwich became a big issue when the council extended the double yellows a year or so ago within only the CPZ area which we were sold on the basis of ?safety? but most saw as a ploy to create parking pressure to help justify a CPZ.

If the council pursues this campaign it will do irreparable harm to the Lordship Lane and East Dulwich community that you represent and the outpouring of resentment towards it on this forum and beyond should serve as a red flag to the council.

[Abe_froeman]

The frank admissions that the council are desperate to implement it and the consultation documents were one sided will be very helpful in a judicial review against the seemingly inevitable decision to impose this CPZ on goose grren ward.

[ianr]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> The frank admissions that the council are

> desperate to implement it

Can you point me to this please. I've unsuccessfully searched the thread for 'desperate' and 'admi' but don't have the willpower to plough through whole threads unaided.

[Abe_froeman]

A few quotes form the council, Ian, admitting a very strong desire to get this done:

"I take on board your points about the Council being clearly in favour of the CPZ being implemented."

"...on a global level the Council?s policy is that CPZs are good because of their impact on air pollution and road safety."

"... the consultation is in part an opportunity for the Council to persuade people that a CPZ is a good thing... "

"One of the key points of the proposed CPZs is to have fewer parked cars on the roads."

It's so obviously a done deal and the consultation has been exploited in favour of the council's position.

[Penguin68]

I would accept that there is an argument about air quality - although equally if cars are driving around looking for somewhere to park, or dropping someone off at the shops and driving round to pick them up (I've done both) that wouldn't hold - and the key issue on air quality is to do with NO2 from diesels, CO2 emissions from petrol cars have a different sort of environmental impact.

However as regards to safety - the effect if implemented will be to make local roads far less parked up (because so much previously parked bits will be banned from parking through double yellows etc, not because there will be fewer local cars wishing to park) such that speeding cars are far more likely, both contributing to accidents and making them worse when they happen. I have seen no evidence to support the safety statement at all.

[The Nappy Lady]

James, I?m not talking about employees, I am talking about companies that HAVE to have vans in order to operate - eg without the vans the business would have to close. I know several businesses in ED that will be effected in this way.

So again, I don?t feel your explanation is acceptable.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that as an employee I cannot have a business permit for my car as obviously it is registered to my home address, not my workplace in ED. So to be clear that is absolutely not why I am pursuing this point.

However, it is the case that I am anxious about the cost of the business permits for the small independent company I work for.

If CPZ comes in I will have to reduce my hours and take a pay cut to allow myself the extra time needed to walk or bus to work and back, or take an effective pay cut by paying around ?30 a week or more to continue to work in the way I have for over 11 years. So either way I am facing stress, despite the fact I always manage to park within two minutes of work, five days a week, at varying times from 8am to 11am, and sometimes later if I?ve had to run errands. Strange then to consider CPZ is needed don?t you think?

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

Molly

[Hemingway]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> James,

> Once again thank you for taking the time to

> respond.

>

> I appreciate that the council is a fan of CPZs

> but, in the same way Brexit was sold to people on

> the basis of untruths, the council?s materials are

> full of examples and facts and figures that are

> deliberately misleading. It tries to present

> itself as balanced but is anything but. And we

> have had members of this forum presenting the

> stats in the consultation documentation as

> validation of the good CPZs do.

>

> It seems to me that the majority of residents both

> in the affected area and beyond are against the

> CPZs but they also feel that the council will

> manipulate and distort the results to their

> advantage and will railroad the plans. Nothing

> about the consultation process, or the way it is

> being implemented, is reassuring them that this is

> anything but a done deal and that the council is

> doggedly pursuing an agenda of revenue generation

> ahead of needs of the local community.

>

> The one fact that does stand up to scrutiny is

> that parking in East Dulwich became a big issue

> when the council extended the double yellows a

> year or so ago within only the CPZ area which we

> were sold on the basis of ?safety? but most saw as

> a ploy to create parking pressure to help justify

> a CPZ.

>

> If the council pursues this campaign it will do

> irreparable harm to the Lordship Lane and East

> Dulwich community that you represent and the

> outpouring of resentment towards it on this forum

> and beyond should serve as a red flag to the

> council.

Well said. I'll vote for anyone who opposes this in local elections

[Abe_froeman]

James do any of the Councillors (Goose Green Ward or otherwise) actually live in the area under threat of the CPZ?

[Galileo]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> James do any of the Councillors (Goose Green Ward

> or otherwise) actually live in the area under

> threat of the CPZ?

What difference does that make?

[Sue]

I would like to publicly give profuse thanks to James McAsh.

I phoned the council a week ago with a question I needed answering, and was told to email a specific address and the email would then be passed to the relevant person to respond, but I had no response.

I then phoned the council again today. Nobody seemed to know anything about the email, I hadn't been given a reference number, and I then spent a large part of the afternoon being passed from one person to another in the council, none of whom could answer a simple question that had by this time become quite urgent.

I emailed James in desperation at around 4.30pm this afternoon, and just before 7pm I received an email from the head of the relevant department answering my question in full.

I am well impressed and extremely grateful! Thanks, James! You're a star!

[cella]

Hemingway Wrote:

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

> Rockets

>

>

> Well said. I'll vote for anyone who opposes this

> in local elections

Really? You would use your precious vote on a single issue in the local elections?

[jamesmcash]

Hi all

I am really devestated to hear the news of a fatal stabbing on Lordship Lane, in Goose Green ward. I am sure many of you will have seen it in the news.

Here is a statement from the police.

?

A man has died following a stabbing in East Dulwich.

Police were called at approximately 02:35hrs on Sunday, 10 February, to reports of a man stabbed in Lordship Lane, near the junction with East Dulwich Grove, SE22.

Officers and London Ambulance Service attended.

The victim, believed to be aged in his 30s, was pronounced dead at the scene at 03:04hrs. Formal identification and a post-mortem examination will be arranged in due course.

Road closures remain in place around the scene.

Detectives from the Homicide and Major Crime Command are investigating.

There have been no arrests at this early stage. Enquiries into the circumstances remain ongoing.

Any witnesses, or anyone with information, should call police on 101 quoting CAD 1048/10feb. To remain anonymous call Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111?

We councillors are in touch with the police and the council. I will provide more information when it is available.

Please be very wary of posting any information on here or in public as it could jeopardise the ongoing investigation.

Best wishes

James

[AylwardS]

This seems trivial given the nature of your last post but the parking zone is an issue for local residents.

I understand you are Councillor for the Goose Green ward but East Dulwich residents in other wards also use the businesses within the consultation area and as they support the businesses I would ask to to confirm all responses to the consultation will be taken into account. Having looked at the report for the Dog Kennel Hill zone only responses from residents were considered valid. I can understand that for the majority of zones the impact is on residents but that is not the case for the East Dulwich zone

1. The consultation is not just restricted to parking but also healthier streets which impact all who visit the area

2. Other East Dulwich residents living outside the area of the zone support businesses in the zone. Without their custom the livelihood of the traders and vibrancy of East Dulwich may well suffer in the ways concerns have been expressed. Driving into the zone is probably less of an issue - we live in the Champion Hill ward but walk / take the bus to The Lordship which is under 1 mile away but in the 20+ years we have lived in East Dulwich we have supported a number of businesses and will continue to do so.

The questionnaire does give the option to choose that you are completing it as a visitor to the area so I trust this means views will be taken into account but would be grateful if you could support this.

I will also be emailing the Councillors for the Champion Hill Ward. I am sure you and your colleagues have already hd discussions on this.

[Abe_froeman]

Hello James, I have a further question re the proposed controlled parking zone in East Dulwich.

Please could you tell me how much it will cost the council to implement the plans they have set out in the consultation document?

Many thanks

[Abe_froeman]

Hello James, I wondered if you knew the answer to my question at all (cost the council to implement the controlled parking plans)?

I have heard form another source that the council has spent ?2.5m on the east dulwich consultation alone. Is that figure accurate and were you or your fellow councillors aware of it in advance?

[TheArtfulDogger]

Hello James

On the 30th Jan you said you were going to find out more about the proposed changes to the quietway

We are still waiting for you to respond