Goose Green councillors - how can we help?

[Sporthuntor]

Looking at the data relating to East Dulwich, it seems pretty clear that a small controlled area around the station with limited hours of operation is a fair outcome, but the bias of those controlling the process is quite clear from the conclusion. You should be embarrassed by this James.

None of the streets to the west of Lordship Lane south of Matham Grove wanted a CPZ. But they get pulled in to the proposed zone. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out that this is designed to create parking pressure on the streets to the east of Lordship Lane, and how very convenient that the council could add these streets in and stay just over 50%)

Overlaying the proposed area onto the results for "What if an adjacent street had a CPZ" in the first instance is just pure misrepresentation.

With regard to the hours of operation, even in the carefully (and oddly given voting profiles per my point above) selected "Melbourne Grove Area" more people wanted partial controls than not, yet this is the choice you go for.

And giving the area that name when the street in question did not support the CPZ is a nice ironic touch.

We're not stupid, so please can you stop treating us as though we are.

It's like you looked at Brexit and though that cracking on with something divisive is something that should be done at local level too.

And as for the poor sods in the Peckham West consultation, I really feel for you guys. Keep fighting.

[Sporthuntor]

Wow and just saw Cardelia's point re Melbourne Grove voting split. What a stitch up.

[jamesmcash]

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

[mikeb]

James, thank you for engaging on this. I would suggest that, instead of answering questions piecemeal, you and your fellow councillors host an hour or two open session where these things can be discussed - genuine engagement.

I think you should come clean and acknowledge that the consultation exercise did not give you a mandate for change - any change. You have not consulted on the new proposals. Unfortunately, the effects of a CPZ on one street do indeed spill over to other streets (an externality) so it is undemocratic to use the views of one street to propose changes that will impact many other people.

The diesel differential pricing is leftfield and makes a mockery of the whole thing - makes me believe you are all idealogically (or fiscally) motivated and not responding to the whole consultation. Did you really mean to say that some proposals are based on your "instinct"? You cannot justify (with evidence or democractic mandate) your proposals at all!

I would respect you more if you openly aknowledged what is clearly the case, that you are against car ownership and that you intend, step by step, to make it more difficult / expensive to own and use a car.

[Sporthuntor]

So no response to the clear manipulation adding the group of streets to the west of Lordship Lane below Matham Grove to the proposed CPZ despite none of those streets voting for it? I thought this was supposed to respect people?s wishes? Doesn?t look like it.

[Earl Aelfheah]

How many times have the council pushed for a CPZ over the years? Each time it?s rejected by the majority of residents and each time they come back. It is inevitable that the council will eventually get their way and the whole of ED will end up a CPZ. If you introduce parking restrictions on a small number of streets, traffic gets displaced and impacts neighbours. It will expand over time. When will the council put as much time, effort and money into pursuing positive measures at reducing traffic in the form of better public transport / alternatives to car ownership?

[KidKruger]

Abe: ?What would be least disruptive to the vast majority of residents who do not a CPZ would be simply to implement a CPZ in those streets that want it.?

But of course that would only provide Southwark with a fraction of the income they have decided they actually want - by milking the (always) planned area.

Predatory pricks.

[KidKruger]

The consultation is a tick-boxing exercise, those responsible for designing and implementing this should be ashamed of themselves, deceit of the very people they pretend to represent.

[tmcoleman]

Is there a councillor for Peckham West on here who could share the fuller results for question 10 on times of operation? The summary document only uses the results for ?all day? and ?2 hour? slot to back up proposal for all day restrictions. I?d like to know the percentage responses for ?part day? and ?other? to be clear on whether the data really points to an ?all day? versus ?less than all day? majority. Thank you.

[tmcoleman]

Rahrahrah this has already happened. The introduction of the Denmark Hill parking zone in January 2019 has put unbearable pressure on the parking on my street near ED station (in Peckham West zone). If the Denmark Hill zone had not been implemented we wouldn?t I don?t think be having this consultation process now. I do agree with your comments.

[first mate]

I wonder how much this consultation exercise has cost? There was a comment along the lines of costs of consultation to be absorbed by CPZ when up and running. So, yet another, albeit lesser, reason for council to ignore the majority and pursue CPZ, no matter what.

[jamesmcash]

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

[Rockets]

James,

The challenge you face is that this whole process has highlighted why so many people have lost faith in politics and politicians. It was obvious to everyone what the result was going to be, and that was the result the council wanted a CPZ to raise revenue and skewed the process to ensure it happened. When the majority in the consultation area voted against it the council reduced the size of the area to create a "majority" and even then a large number of the roads impacted voted against but get it anyway - that is not democracy.

You represent a ward that overwhelmingly voted against the CPZ yet you pull the party line putting party politics ahead of the desires of the majority of your constituents. This is why people are sick of politics. You represent a ward where traders are massively concerned about the impact of the CPZ on their livelihoods yet you, and your party, have neglected them allowing them to become collateral damage.

The more we all look at the results the more we realise what a whitewash this has been.

At some point I hope an elected official will actually stand up for the views and desires of the majority of their constituents - I would vote for them and I am sure lots of others would.

69% of the respondents in the consultation area voted against it yet the area still gets a CPZ that will impact all. How is that democratic?

[Jacqui5254]

This. A thousand times.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> James,

> The challenge you face is that this whole process

> has highlighted why so many people have lost faith

> in politics and politicians. It was obvious to

> everyone what the result was going to be, and that

> was the result the council wanted a CPZ to raise

> revenue and skewed the process to ensure it

> happened. When the majority in the consultation

> area voted against it the council reduced the size

> of the area to create a "majority" and even then a

> large number of the roads impacted voted against

> but get it anyway - that is not democracy.

>

> You represent a ward that overwhelmingly voted

> against the CPZ yet you pull the party line

> putting party politics ahead of the desires of the

> majority of your constituents. This is why people

> are sick of politics. You represent a ward where

> traders are massively concerned about the impact

> of the CPZ on their livelihoods yet you, and your

> party, have neglected them allowing them to become

> collateral damage.

>

> The more we all look at the results the more we

> realise what a whitewash this has been.

>

> At some point I hope an elected official will

> actually stand up for the views and desires of the

> majority of their constituents - I would vote for

> them and I am sure lots of others would.

>

> 69% of the respondents in the consultation area

> voted against it yet the area still gets a CPZ

> that will impact all. How is that democratic?

[AC1964]

"Finally can I say that I am quite surprised and disappointed by the tone of some of the responses on here."

Condescending much?

Patronising much?

[KidKruger]

You need to expect that kind of tone and sentiment when people are being pissed on and they realise it.

[Penguin68]

The council stated they wanted to stop 'commuters' parking up in ED - apparently at the request of (some) residents - we warned that many of the 'commuters' were in fact teaching, medical, shop keeping staff and tradespeople who were coming into ED to serve us in ED, not to pass through.

Through commuters could have been deterred by a limited time (2 hour) CPZ - but not those coming to meet our local needs. So the council's intent to support a day-long CPZ - against the broad wishes of probably a majority (the figures are fudged here) - means (probably) that they realize that without that, any CPZ would be seen by those clamouring for one as not working - were through commuters the real issue.

I just hope all those living in the (quite few) streets that were majority CPZ are relaxed about schools and clinics closing, or finding it difficult to recruit, about not being able to get local tradespeople to serve them and so on.

Those if us who were against a CPZ at all will of course just have to go hang - but then no change there.

If the CPZ 'zone' was smaller - not including roads that expressed a contrary opinion - and was for a 'through commuter deterrent' time slot I could be happier to believe that the council was responding to local opinion. But then, it's really not so responsive - this is part of its stated anti-car agenda. Let's see how far our local ward representatives get in any toning down of the proposals they seek on our behalf.

[dougiefreeman]

Nothing to add to this, but bumping as I, as I am sure like others, would like to hear Cllr McAsh?s response to this exact comment.

Bravo Rockets, you hit the nail on the head here.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> James,

> The challenge you face is that this whole process

> has highlighted why so many people have lost faith

> in politics and politicians. It was obvious to

> everyone what the result was going to be, and that

> was the result the council wanted a CPZ to raise

> revenue and skewed the process to ensure it

> happened. When the majority in the consultation

> area voted against it the council reduced the size

> of the area to create a "majority" and even then a

> large number of the roads impacted voted against

> but get it anyway - that is not democracy.

>

> You represent a ward that overwhelmingly voted

> against the CPZ yet you pull the party line

> putting party politics ahead of the desires of the

> majority of your constituents. This is why people

> are sick of politics. You represent a ward where

> traders are massively concerned about the impact

> of the CPZ on their livelihoods yet you, and your

> party, have neglected them allowing them to become

> collateral damage.

>

> The more we all look at the results the more we

> realise what a whitewash this has been.

>

> At some point I hope an elected official will

> actually stand up for the views and desires of the

> majority of their constituents - I would vote for

> them and I am sure lots of others would.

>

> 69% of the respondents in the consultation area

> voted against it yet the area still gets a CPZ

> that will impact all. How is that democratic?

[singalto]

What are ?externalities??

[ED_moots]

Hi James, please confirm what weight was given to the signed letter with 62 signatories and the deputation made by Vale Residents Association?

Were the 62 signatures verified and what was the substance of the deputation?

The nucleus of the VRA are pro CPZ and had prepared a letter of support from all roads it represents without any valid data from us. This was later amended to give a neutral stance but I know they also leafletted and wanted to know what they presented at the DCC meeting.

Since they canvassed very hard on these streets, so presumably captured as many signatures as they could muster, is it fair to assume that the council is imposing this CPZ on us with the support of just 62 residents/families?

The hours of operation also seem totally unrelated to commuter parking and will harm local business. By 'externatilities' I presume you mean our neighbours for whom a CPZ has not been proposed but will definitely be impacted.

I live on Melbourne Grove (North) and am totally unconvinced that CPZ will improve parking for residents - except the small number who like to pop out in their cars during the day and would prefer to return and park very close to their home. This, again, is a tiny minority in Ed.

[Eileen]

Dear Cllr James - This is what it says in the CPZ report:

"A final report and an Individual Decision Making (IDM) report with final recommendations will be presented to

the Cabinet Member for decision making. The IDM report will include feedback received from the Community

Council and any representations to Council Assembly on 27 March 2019."

Has this time schedule been overtaken? Which Council Assembly is it going to now?

[jamesmcash]

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:

Question 1: size of the zone

Any Controlled Parking Zone needs to have boundaries which make sense. The officer recommendation is for a zone which is bound to the north by Grove Vale, to the west by the railway line, and to the east by Lordship Lane. These boundaries seem relatively simple and straightforward to me. However, the boundary to the south seems more arbitrary. Ashbourne Grove, Chesterfield Grove, Bassano Street and Blackwater Street are included whilst Lytcott Grove, Playfield Crescent and Colwell Road are excluded. I suspect that were the latter roads to be included then the zone would no longer have a majority in support of a CPZ so it makes sense to exclude them, but I think there is a question over whether the former four streets should be included. If the objective is to create the biggest possible CPZ whilst still maintaining a majority for it, then it makes sense to include them. But if the objective is to find a zone which pleases the maximum number of people then removing the four streets would mean that a greater number of people are living under an outcome that they supported. None of these streets returned a majority in favour of the CPZ. The same logic applies to removing the southern section of Melbourne Grove (south of East Dulwich Grove)

Moreover, I suspect that these streets are rarely used for commuter parking at the station, but often used by shoppers visiting Lordship Lane. So removing these streets might further alleviate any concerns regarding the impact on local traders. The streets left remaining in the proposed CPZ are not generally used by shoppers.

What do you think? If a CPZ goes ahead with the proposed area, should Melbourne Grove south, Ashbourne Grove, Chesterfield Grove, Bassano Street and Blackwater Street be included?

Question 2: Hours of operation

Of those living within the officer?s proposed area, 44% want the CPZ to be operational all day (8.30am to 6.30pm), compared to 27% for two hour controls and 18% for ?Other?. This makes it the most popular option of the three. However, I assume that those who selected ?Other? want the zone to be operational for either less than 2 hours per day, or for more than 2 hours but less than all day. I doubt that those selecting ?Other? were doing so because they wanted the zone to be operational throughout the night.

If this assumption holds then it means that, while 8.30am-6.30pm is the most popular option of the three, the majority of respondents in this area would prefer it to be shorter.

What do you think? If a CPZ goes ahead with the proposed area, either with or without the streets mentioned in Question 1, should it be operational from 8.30am to 6.30pm or for a shorter period of time?

Question 3: Other comments

The two questions above were just the ones which jumped out at us. But if anyone has any further comments it would be great to hear them too.

That said, I do not think it is worth rehashing the arguments for and against a CPZ in general. I know that there are strong opinions on both sides of the debate, and finding these out was the purpose of the consultation. For me at least, the question now is how to use the information we have to decide an outcome that best meets the conflicting views and concerns of different people in the area.

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

[Penguin68]

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:

James, it was precisely to your initial post that I was responding - I said Let's see how far our local ward representatives get in any toning down of the proposals they seek on our behalf. as an 'I hear what you say, but what impact will you (and other local councillors) actually have over the apparat?'. You have suggested a reduction in the geographic scope and a review of the CPZ time limits, based on any responses to you - which my post was intended to be. I rather thought I had been answering, in my way, your 'few quick questions'. I was then querying how effective local opinion being fed back to the Tooley St machine would be, based on their interpretation of their own polling results. I hope to stand amazed at your effectiveness.

[jamesmcash]

Dear Penguin68

Thanks for clarifying.

Best wishes

James

[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.

"I do not have the full figures available to me so I cannot work out the exact statistics"

This is ought to be utterly embarrassing.