Goose Green councillors - how can we help?

[andrewc]

Who do I email with my objection to the scheme?

[TE44]

Hi James, I am sorry if this has been asked before. I have not read all this thread. Can you tell me if Southwark council has seen any delay in social housing repairs, especially where there is no drivers in a household. I have been told private contractors would apply for a permit, I am just interested to know if this has affected

the repair service in any way. Would be interesting to hear from anyone in social housing within a CPZ. Thanks.

[Abe_froeman]

Hi James

Given you have already seemingly shared the full data with some people, please would you make it available publicly for all of your constituents.

There can be no data protection restriction if you have been able to share it already so there is no good reason why you should not publish it.

[jimlad48]

Someone asked about how many votes counted from same address. If memory serves, Southwark ignores multiple votes from the same address - only counting one reply from each address. Its not possible to 'stack the system' this way.

[Jacqui5254]

So how does it work if there are conflicting views...if one or more vote is for, and one or more against?

jimlad48 Wrote:

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

> Someone asked about how many votes counted from

> same address. If memory serves, Southwark ignores

> multiple votes from the same address - only

> counting one reply from each address. Its not

> possible to 'stack the system' this way.

[MarkT]

The report states on page 2 "More than one response per address was accepted but duplicates removed where the same name was used."

[Abe_froeman]

Farcical

[alice]

Library CPZ meeting today at 2.30

[Eileen]

alice Wrote:

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

> Library CPZ meeting today at 2.30

If you are from Peckham West and want to join our work on this please come and give us your email address.

[Rockets]

Wandered down to the meeting today at the library and to say it was shambolic was an understatement. The council had massively under estimated the number of people who would want to attend and hear from them and ask questions. When I arrived the line snaked down the stairs from the meeting room, into the library and out towards the street. We were told that the room, which held 100 people was at capacity and that we could follow the meeting on the stream. Someone suggested that perhaps the meeting should be postponed and the council find a more suitable location for it given so many people wanted to voice their views.

There was much umming and ahhring and a lot of people left. After some time the council officials returned and suggested that they were postponing the non CPZ element of the meeting and they would run two concurrent meetings to accommodate the excessive numbers and present their CPZ findings and take questions. The majority of people suggested that the common sense approach was to postpone the meeting as they wanted to hear from all of the community that had attended, not have it split in two.

At this point someone from the library told everyone not in the meeting room to leave the library as it was a health and safety issue. So everyone decamped to the pavement outside the library. Everyone outside was told that there would be a separate meeting that would start about an hour later after the first CPZ meeting concluded. People pointed out that many had already left as they had been turned away and that postponing the meeting was the best course of action.

A councillor from West Dulwich came out and said that even though she agreed that the meeting should be postponed that it likely couldn?t be. She said she would recommend it to the chairman of the meeting.

The feeling of the majority of those stuck outside the meeting was that the council were, once again, treating the electorate with contempt.

Like many of those who attended for a 2.30pm start I could not stay for the 2nd meeting so I would be interested to know if any decision was taken on rescheduling the meeting or whether anyone has any info from either two of the meetings.

The feeling was that if the council could postpone the non CPZ discussion element of the meeting then they should have done it for the CPZ discussion. But, as someone quite rightly pointed out, the council probably has to have a ?public meeting? as part of the process of implementing the CPZ so could not postpone it without impacting the start date for the CPZ.

The whole CPZ process has been flawed from the beginning and today again gives weight to those who think that the council doesn?t care about the views of the residents of East Dulwich. Today was another sad day, another nail in the coffin for the democratic process.

[ED_moots]

wonderwoman Wrote:

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

> Re surgeries what time would that be?

7pm per James signature above.

[Eileen]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Wandered down to the meeting today at the library

> and to say it was shambolic was an understatement.

> The council had massively under estimated the

> number of people who would want to attend and hear

> from them and ask questions. When I arrived the

> line snaked down the stairs from the meeting room,...

>

> Like many of those who attended for a 2.30pm start

> I could not stay for the 2nd meeting so I would be

> interested to know if any decision was taken on

> rescheduling the meeting or whether anyone has any

> info from either two of the meetings.

Hi Rockets - I have posted briefly on what happened later on the 'Peckham West' thread: https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,2023271 To add to that, the ward Councillors agreed to recommend that the CPZ should not apply south of East Dulwich Grove, and be for 2 hours a day, not all day, and that Ondine Rd and East Dulwich Rd be removed from the Peckham West area. No further Dulwich CC meetings. But we have a residents organised meeting next Saturday 4 May 2-4pm Amott Rd Baptist Church to cover the whole of the Peckham West area, which is the streets between the Peckham town centre CPZ and the main roads East Dulwich Rd, Grove Vale and the railway line. For further info on that please email me at [email protected]

[Pugwash]

Was going to attend meeting but got held up as assisting a neighbour with some DIY. Last time a meeting was held at the library with a 'routine agenda' you could hardly move. Should have held it at Christ Church.

[first mate]

Thanks for that feedback Eileen and Pugwash. Does anyone know the track record of Cllr Livingstone following through on ward councillor recommendations for parking and CPZ related issues?

[KidKruger]

Rockets that sounds an awful (misrepresentation) mess, no way it could be a useful community event if it happened as described !

[first mate]

Agreed!

[dresswaves]

> I have posted briefly on what

> happened later on the 'Peckham West' thread:

> https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?

> 5,2023271 To add to that, the ward Councillors

> agreed to recommend that the CPZ should not apply

> south of East Dulwich Grove, and be for 2 hours a

> day, not all day, and that Ondine Rd and East

> Dulwich Rd be removed from the Peckham West area.

> No further Dulwich CC meetings. But we have a

> residents organised meeting next Saturday 4 May

> 2-4pm Amott Rd Baptist Church to cover the whole

> of the Peckham West area, which is the streets

> between the Peckham town centre CPZ and the main

> roads East Dulwich Rd, Grove Vale and the railway

> line.

Thanks for the update Eileen. Do you know the reason for taking Ondine Road & East Dulwich Road out of Peckham West Area? Does that mean they will in no CPZ surrounded by the proposed Peckham West & East Dulwich CPZs, that really would not work!

[Eileen]

dresswaves Wrote:

>

> Thanks for the update Eileen. Do you know the

> reason for taking Ondine Road & East Dulwich Road

> out of Peckham West Area? Does that mean they will

> in no CPZ surrounded by the proposed Peckham West

> & East Dulwich CPZs, that really would not work!

Hi - It was Cllr James McAsh who proposed the removal of Ondine Rd and East Dulwich Rd. Time was short by then and there was no discussion on this but hopefully James can explain here the reasoning in response to your question. I agree it raises new issues that need consideration. We will report this recommendation to the community meeting on Sat 4th May and see what also needs to be thought about and how it fits.

[Abe_froeman]

Hi James

Apologies if you have been busy but a week ago I asked where I might access the full dataset for the CPZ consultation.

It seems that you have been able to share it with posters on here and so would be grateful if you would confirm where it can be found?

Many thanks

[intexasatthe moment]

James - is there a mechanism for removing with dropped curbs where they are no longer in use ? With a CPZ these are lumped in with active dropped curbs and yellow lines across and beyond them reduce parking spaces .

See this thread https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,2024596,page=1

for comments like these below

Re: Parking ticket for parking across a dropped kerb

Posted by Lynne April 28, 06:25PM

There's an old dropped kerb in our street that now has a brick wall built across where the cars used to go.It seems unfair that anyone could be penalised for parking there. I'm not talking here about the council's recent access dropped kerbs, just old redundant ones.

Options: Reply To This Message?Quote This Message?Reply via Private Message (PM)?Follow This Thread?Report This Message

messageRe: Parking ticket for parking across a dropped kerb

Posted by ed_pete April 28, 08:00PM

Same here and the council marked them with double yellows in the recent CPZ consultation pack.

[jamesmcash]

Hi all

I am going to try to respond to a few of the specific queries on here before providing a more general update on the CPZ. I will come back to the queries about garden waste as soon as I can.

Abe_froeman

?I am pleased ... how well the published report accurately reflects that data.?

Thanks Abe_froeman, it?s great to hear that you have such total confidence in the council, despite not having had a chance to read the data yourself :P

I am afraid that I cannot share the full dataset. It will be published in a form that is compliant with the relevant legislation (see the Dog Kennel Hill CPZ repot for an example) but I am not sure exactly when. I can see why the post from ed_moots made you think that I have shared the dataset with others but I can assure you that all I shared there were the handful of percentages included in their post above. As far as I know, the only people with access to the full dataset are the councillors and council officers.

ED_moots

The consultation treats each individual separately, not each household. Regardless of how many vehicles a household owns, the members of the household may not agree on the issue.

Mrs D

I will respond to the general issue of DYL later but I just wanted to flag up that I am working with local schools on a crossing for Whately Road.

sporthuntor

I thought you were apologising for misreading, I did not realise you were also apologising for being rude. Apology accepted!

TE44

Great question! Let me find out.

Rockets

I am going to comment fully on the Dulwich Community Council meeting below but I just wanted to say that I agree with you that the way it was organised was far from satisfactory.

Best wishes

James

[jamesmcash]

Dear all

Last Saturday was Dulwich Community Council. This is a council meeting open to all residents of Goose Green, Dulwich Hill, Dulwich Village and Dulwich Wood wards. On this occasion the main item on the agenda was the proposed controlled parking zones (CPZs) in East Dulwich and Peckham West.

It is fair to say that the council did not adequately prepare for the number of people who wanted to attend. The room was not big enough and there were insufficient chairs. It was clear that the vast majority of the attendees were there to discuss the CPZs, and not the other items on the agenda. Consequently, the Community Council Chair, Cllr Andy Simmons, took the decision to remove all other items from the agenda and to run the discussion about the CPZs twice back-to-back. This meant that as many people as possible were able to discuss this important issue. The first session started immediately and the second started shortly after the discussion had been originally scheduled to take place on the agenda.

We first heard from the council?s Acting Head of Highways, who provided an overview of what had happened so far and where the process will go next. He also answered some factual questions. Then there was a discussion from the floor, opened up with pre-agreed speeches from each side of the debate: the traders were represented, as were the pro-CPZ residents living near the station.

At the end of the discussion it was to the councillors to agree a recommendation from the Community Council to Cllr Richard Livingstone, who will ultimately make the final decision.

I made a number of proposals, which were then followed up by my fellow Goose Green Labour Councillor, Cllr Charlie Smith. All of these were agreed. I am going to first briefly summarise the process to-date, the outline the recommendations agreed by Dulwich Community Council, and finally explain the next steps of the process.

How we got here

Here?s a brief timeline

- Before I was elected last year and when I was a Labour candidate, I was frequently asked about controlled parking. Whether the person questioning me was for or against I always said the same thing: a CPZ should only be implemented if local residents want it.

- Over the summer discussion about a potential consultation began on here. I made it clear in September that the CPZ consultation was not all-or-nothing and that if it were supported in one section of the area but not in others then it could be implemented in just that section.

- This winter the consultation launched, and the key question asked residents if they want a CPZ on their road. It was not an all-or-nothing referendum on whether to implement a CPZ across the whole area, it was a consultation to identify whether or not there are streets which want one.

- In January I pledged on here, and with the support of the leader of the Council, Cllr Peter John, that there were three potential outcomes: full implementation across the consultation area, full rejection across the consultation area, or partial implementation in just a subsection of the consultation area where there is majority support.

- In April the interim reports of the consultations were released, each with a recommendation from officers for how to proceed.

Recommendation 1: Shrinking Area of the East Dulwich CPZ

The officer-proposed ?Melbourne Grove area? is consistent with my pledge above: there is a majority in this area for a CPZ. But when I looked at the map of responses it was clear to me that the support came from two sections: the area around the station and the area around the new health centre. At the south east of this area there are four roads which all intersect with Lordship Lane, and which taken together had a majority against the CPZ. These are Ashbourne, Chesterfield, Bassano and Blackwater.

From my experience of talking to people on Melbourne Grove I strongly suspected that there would be a stark difference in opinion between those at the northern end near the station and those at the southern end near Lordship Lane. When I asked for this data to be segmented into North and South, my views were confirmed and it turned out that there was a strong majority for a CPZ in the part of Melbourne Grove north of East Dulwich Grove, and a strong majority against in the part to the south.

Not only do these 4 and a half streets have a majority against a CPZ, they are also the streets which are most likely to be used by visitors to Lordship Lane (the streets coming off the other side of Lordship Lane were not even included in the officers? proposal).

So given the lack of support for a CPZ on these roads, and the concerns raised by local traders, I proposed that Ashbourne,Chesterfield, Bassano, Blackwater and the southern section of Melbourne Grove be removed from the CPZ. Given that the CPZ would no longer cover much of Melbourne Grove I further suggested that the CPZ be renamed ?East Dulwich Grove CPZ?

Bearing in mind that residents were asked whether they want a CPZ on their road, this proposal would mean that 75% of respondents will live under the outcome they want and 19% live will under the outcome they do not. It will also mean that the main streets used for parking

Recommendation 2: Shrinking Area of Peckham West CPZ

The principles above, if applied to Peckham West, led me to think that Ondine Road and East Dulwich Road should be excluded from the CPZ. They are on the edge fo the proposed area, together they have a majority against the CPZ, and they are near enough to Lordship Lane to be used by shoppers.

I have to say, I have received many fewer people contact me about this than did regarding the East Dulwich boundaries, so I suspect that it is not an issue which concerns people as much. Nonetheless, I thought it was important to apply the same principles consistently.

Recommendation 3: Peckham West times of operation

The officer proposal was for Peckham West to have an all day CPZ. As identified above by tmcoleman, the statistical justification for this is questionable.

The breakdown of responses is as follows:

- All day: 34%

- 12-2pm: 29%

- Part of the day: 13%

- Other: 17%

- Did not answer: 7%

The officer recommendation is that given that All Day is the most popular option, this should be proposed. However, I agree with tmcoleman that the people who responded either Part Day or 12-2 (42% altogether) would prefer some form of Part Day CPZ to an All Day CPZ. So, given this, I proposed that Dulwich Community Council recommend that the Peckham West CPZ is only from 12-2pm.

Other recommendations

The remaining recommendations came from Cllr Charlie Smith. They are quite specific and detail-focused but I think that they will make a big difference when it comes to implementing a CPZ. They are in response to a number of concerns raised with all of us:

- Request that officers minimise the lengths of double yellow lines across dropped kerbs and elsewhere in the design of the CPZ

- Request that officers review the cost of monthly permits and annual permits?such that residents are not penalised for paying monthly

- Request that officers review the Whateley Road green screen to ensure that it does not impact on visibility at this critical junction

- Request that officers present a follow up monitoring report to Dulwich Community Council if the CPZs are implemented

Process from here

The above recommendations - from both Cllr Charlie Smith and me - were all approved unanimously.

However, Dulwich Community Council does not make the final decision on this issue. We have sent our recommendations onto Cllr Richard Livingstone who will make the final decision in the coming weeks. If he decides to implement one or more CPZs then that will lead to a further round of traffic management consultations. This is where the details of things like double yellow lines are worked out street by street. There will also be further opportunity to shape some of the specific details of the proposal.

As always, I am happy to answer any questions.

Best wishes

James

[ed_pete]

James - for some reason you have emphasised that residents were asked if they want a CPZ on their road as if this is the way the CPZ will be implemented. It seems to me that you are making this point to deflect from the fact that overall, in the consultation area the majority of residents voted against the CPZ a significant point which you choose not to mention at all in your summary.

However as we know, your recommendation is not on a street-by-street basis, it is based on a selective area where you have managed to find a majority in favour.

Your area includes the streets to the west of the East Dulwich Grove junction with Melbourne Grove, near the new Charter School and Health Centre. According to the consultation the results for these streets are as follows:

East Dulwich Grove - against

Glengarry Road - undecided

Trossachs Road - for

Tarbert Road - for

Thorncombe Road - undecided

Hillsborough Road - against

East Dulwich Estate - 2 for, 4 against, 2 undecided, 2 no response.

So in total we have 4 for, 6 against and 4 undecided. Hardly a majority.

Within the East Dulwich Estate, on the side closest to the railway, there is a large area for residents parking between the estate and the railway line fence. I walk through here regularly and there are always parking spaces available.

So, were we to discount the responses from those streets within the East Dulwich Estate on the railway line side where here is adequate free parking provision, then we have 2 for, 6 against and 4 undecided.

How, on that basis is that representing the residents desire for a CPZ ?

Furthermore, how can you exclude Melbourne Grove South ? part of which is closer to the new Health Centre than the above streets - and include those above ? Surely visitors Health Centre visitors will soon realise that they can park for free there and you will suffer the classic displacement ?

I look forward to your response.

[Rockets]

James,

The meeting was beyond shambolic and it should have been postponed and rescheduled to a date when the council could provide an adequately sized venue that was suitable for task.

When the news was first broken to us that the room was full someone immediately suggested that the meeting should be rescheduled. We were told that we could only watch the meeting on the webstream and so a large number of those waiting to get in left. Those who stayed were then unceremoniously pushed onto the pavement outside the library whilst the council decided what to do. More people left.

It was clear that whilst the council was happy to postpone the non-CPZ elements of the agenda there was a huge reluctance on their part to do the same with the CPZ discussion (even though the councillor for Dulwich West came out and said she agreed it should be postponed and would make the recommendation to the chair - did she and was this minuted?). This led many to believe that without that meeting having been completed the council could not implement the CPZ so it pushed forward with the meeting as a box ticking exercise.

The community was not afforded the opportunity to address the council enmasse and many, myself included, were unable to attend the meeting and hear from the council or be heard on a matter of huge importance to the area due to the council's own failings. That is not how these things are supposed to work and demonstrates, yet again, the contempt with which this council views its residents and the councillors their constituents.

Now, to your second note:

Your comment on 75% of residents living under the outcome they want - firstly, I would temper your use of stats before someone accuses you of being sinister or likening you to the mouthpiece of a terrorist organisation ;-) -secondly, the CPZ will impact 100% of your constituents and the people in the local area.

The majority of residents do not want a CPZ yet are going to be forced to live with the affects of one. You may have cleverly worded your questionnaire to focus on a single roads but we all know the impact of a CPZ goes beyond a single road. One, ahem, wonders why you didn't pose the question in the consultation about whether residents would like a CPZ in the area at all or whether any had any concerns about the impact on the community.....

Unfortunately, through every step of this process the council has shown its true colours and has steamrolled something on the community that the majority do not want.

The motivation is not the good of the community but to swell the ?15m annual revenue and ?6m surplus the council makes from parking permits, pay and display and PCNs and your constituents are the victims of this. And that surplus goes on road maintenance but just what did the council spend ?5.8m on road maintenance on last year and why has that increased from ?1.7m in 2011/12?

I see the thread on this topic has been mysteriously lounged so for any of you that want to read the stats the report is here (page 38 deals with budget)

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/8423/Southwark%20Transport%20Plan%20Annual%20Monitoring%20Report%202017-18.pdf

[dresswaves]

jamesmcash Wrote

>

> Recommendation 2: Shrinking Area of Peckham West

> CPZ

> The principles above, if applied to Peckham West,

> led me to think that Ondine Road and East Dulwich

> Road should be excluded from the CPZ. They are on

> the edge fo the proposed area, together they have

> a majority against the CPZ, and they are near

> enough to Lordship Lane to be used by shoppers.

>

> I have to say, I have received many fewer people

> contact me about this than did regarding the East

> Dulwich boundaries, so I suspect that it is not an

> issue which concerns people as much. Nonetheless,

> I thought it was important to apply the same

> principles consistently.

>

> As always, I am happy to answer any questions.

>

> Best wishes

> James

Okay, all very well to apply the principles consistently but what about practicality. Where are car owners of Ondine Road & East Dulwich Road expected to park when their roads are filled with cars from Lordship Lane shoppers?