Goose Green councillors - how can we help?

[worldwiser]

James, this vote was done on a community basis. The result should stand in the spirit of that exercise, as a community. I don't believe anyone can possibly have concluded during this referendum that results would be eventually be divided up street by street. You and the council are twisting an apparently open, transparent process into a total sham.

Why go to the trouble of creating two separate areas and two separate votes if they didn't, ultimately, mean anything? We exist as a community, not as one street pitched against the next. You will create huge resentment in this area and you will bear the consequences of it.

This isn't Brexit. It's abundantly clear what the people voted for. It's utterly extraordinary to me that we're having to fight to get it.

[eastdulwichlocal99]

.

[first mate]

Eastdulwich99 I believe these questions were asked.

As others have said, the questionnaire was designed in such a way as to maximise opportunity for the Council to justify introduction of CPZ, if only on a few streets. In short, it was designed to make CPZ happen! James further flagged that contiguous streets were yet another way the council could broaden the CPZ, even streets with a clear majority against CPZ.

The council desperately needed just a few streetsi favour to get CPZ started. Once underway it is very likely that parking displacement over time, together with all the Council's other endeavours to increase pressure on parking, will result in an eventual spread of CPZ- which is the plan.

[KidKruger]

Well said, Rocket.

The people in the community are just resources to be milked by the council, CPZ is a planned revenue earner and manipulation (of approach, of statistics, of conclusion) is the method by which the council intend to enforce it.

[intexasatthe moment]

James - if there are dropped kerbs that are redundant (eg wall built ) is there a mechanism for removing their dropped kerb designation ? So that they don't get included in the planned double yellow lines over ( and beyond ) them .

[TheArtfulDogger]

James

Can you comment on the transport planning policy being signed off with a borough wide CPZ mentioned which occurred before the community council meeting

Were you aware of this change in policy ?

How does it effect your recommendations ?

Will it over ride the consultations on CPZs that have just occurred?

[dougiefreeman]

Dear James

The fact that certain streets might be in favour of a CPZ due to their proximity to the station is kind of irrelevant. Whilst I empathise that it can be frustrating not being able to park outside your house (or in some cases having to park on another street altogether - I have experienced this regularly in all three parts of the area I have lived in recent years) residents simply do not have any ownership of the road outside their property. Nothing has changed, that would have been the case when they purchased their property - the roads are for the general use of all council tax paying citizens.

If you want to guarantee a parking space, move further out of town where you can afford a drive way. I love East Dulwich but I can not afford a home with a drive way - therefore I have to accept that parking my car may not always be easy. That is a sacrifice I make to live in this area.

We all, as residents of East Dulwich, collectively pay for the roads and any action taken to implement a CPZ (however small the area may become) will affect ALL residents in one way or another. As such the council SHOULD be acting with the overwhelming majority AGAINST implementing the CPZ.

Aside from mounting a legal case against the council, are there any other official means of appealing or fighting the decision to ignore the overwhelming majority and implementing the CPZ (in any form) anyway?

[jamesmcash]

Hi all

I hope you are all enjoying your bank holiday weekend. Let me try to answer some of the questions on here.

Ed_pete - I emphasised that the consultation asked people if they wanted a CPZ on their road because there is some misinformation being circulated to say that 68% of people in East Dulwich do not want a CPZ in East Dulwich. We do not know how many people in East Dulwich want a CPZ on Derwent Grove (for example) because only the people on Derwent Grove were asked this. I suspect that the majority of people on streets like Heber Road (for example) have no strong feeling on this subject, despite being quite opposed to there being a CPZ on their own road. However, what we do know is that the majority of people on Derwent Grove do want a CPZ on Derwent Grove. And the majority of people in the area I have proposed above want a CPZ on their road too.

The proposed area is not based on a count of roads for and against, it is based on the total number of respondents for and against, balanced with the need to design boundaries which make sense. The area I have proposed above does this.

Rockets - I agree that the meeting was not well organised in advance. However, once it was clear that there were too many people to fit there were three options:

1) Cancel the meeting entirely - leaving residents with no opportunity to discuss the matter

2) Postpone it to a future date - which would have meant that the many people who had turned up would needlessly lose their opportunity to contribute there

3) Organise the two sessions back-to-back - which would mean that everyone who had come to the meeting expecting the CPZ to be discussed at the pre-advertised time would have opportunity to do so.

The Chair took the 3rd option, which I think was the best one available to us. This had nothing to do with any requirement for the Council to have the meeting before a decision is taken - the council?s constitution has no such requirement so a decision could have been taken on the CPZ even if the meeting was cancelled (I would not have supported this option).

?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?

- There are plenty of people who want a CPZ in their area (predominantly in the area where I argue there should be one). They are not stooges of the council or under-cover council officers. They are expressing genuine concerns which the council is trying to address.

- It is illegal for the council to introduce a CPZ to raise revenue.

- Any revenue that the council does raise goes straight back into public services anyway, it?s not as if it?s syphoned into the bank account of billionaires in the Cayman Islands.

You may disagree with the conclusions I have reached but I cannot see what evidence you have that I am not acting with the best interests of the community at heart.

intexasatthe moment

?James - if there are dropped kerbs that are redundant (eg wall built ) is there a mechanism for removing their dropped kerb designation ? So that they don't get included in the planned double yellow lines over ( and beyond ) them .?

Great question! I am afraid I do not know but I will find out for you and get back to you as soon as I can.

TheArtfulDogger

I am going to look into why this is mentioned in this document because it is the first I have heard of such a decision being taken, which makes me think it is a mistake.

dougiefreeman

Thanks for your comments. I do understand your perspective. The final decision will be taken by Cabinet Member Cllr Richard Livingstone so it is worth contacting him directly with your views: [email protected]

Best wishes

James

[MarkT]

James,

?? To enable us to better manage limited space, we will introduce more Controlled Parking Zones with the aim of covering the whole borough by 2025.?

Southwark?s Local Implementation Plan LIP 3 2018

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/movement-plan/supporting_documents/Southwark%20Local%20Implementation%20Plan%20LIP3_Consultation%20draft.pdf

MarkT

[ed_pete]

James, you say that ?the majority of people in the area I have proposed above want a CPZ on their road too.?

The information on how many voted in favour or against from each street is not available in the consultation report so is it something only available to a select few ? Why has it not been publicly disseminated ? Are you making recommendations based on information that isn?t in the public domain ?

Did the majority of people in the Glengarry/Tarbert/Thorncome/Trossachs/Hillsborough/ East Dulwich Grove and East Dulwich Grove Estate vote in favour of the CPZ ? What are the numbers ? For those that live in the East Dulwich Grove Estate, on which road were they voting for the CPZ to be created, as their streets are pedestrianised.

You say that your proposal has "boundaries which make sense." Make sense to whom exactly and on what basis ?

You have already divided one road into two - Melbourne Grove and excluded the part (South) that is both closer to the Station and the School and Health Centre than other roads that are included.

You are also no doubt aware that 2 hour operation times doesn't deter commuters. They simply set an alarm on their phones for the time the 2 hour window starts and pay by text from work. This happens all the time in Herne Hill/North Dulwich where there is a CPZ.

[first mate]

Cllr McAsh wrote

Ed_pete -" I emphasised that the consultation asked people if they wanted a CPZ on their road because there is some misinformation being circulated to say that 68% of people in East Dulwich do not want a CPZ in East Dulwich. We do not know how many people in East Dulwich want a CPZ on Derwent Grove (for example) because only the people on Derwent Grove were asked this. I suspect that the majority of people on streets like Heber Road (for example) have no strong feeling on this subject, despite being quite opposed to there being a CPZ on their own road. However, what we do know is that the majority of people on Derwent Grove do want a CPZ on Derwent Grove. And the majority of people in the area I have proposed above want a CPZ on their road too."

In general, if a resident does not want controlled parking in their own street it is unlikely they will want CPZ anywhere close because of the risk of displacement. Southwark Council know this and it is precisely the reason why we were not asked about CPZ for the whole area but on a street by street basis, because the answer would have been a resounding 'no thanks', just as it was at the last CPZ consultation- which was not so long ago. So unlike Cllr McAsh, I suspect residents on Heber Road may be very interested in CPZ on other roads in ED, just as the majority of residents who participated in the consultation probably are.

[roywj]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Cllr McAsh wrote

> Ed_pete -" I emphasised that the consultation

> asked people if they wanted a CPZ on their road

> because there is some misinformation being

> circulated to say that 68% of people in East

> Dulwich do not want a CPZ in East Dulwich. We do

> not know how many people in East Dulwich want a

> CPZ on Derwent Grove (for example) because only

> the people on Derwent Grove were asked this. I

> suspect that the majority of people on streets

> like Heber Road (for example) have no strong

> feeling on this subject, despite being quite

> opposed to there being a CPZ on their own road.

> However, what we do know is that the majority of

> people on Derwent Grove do want a CPZ on Derwent

> Grove. And the majority of people in the area I

> have proposed above want a CPZ on their road too."

>

>

> In general, if a resident does not want controlled

> parking in their own street it is unlikely they

> will want CPZ anywhere close because of the risk

> of displacement. Southwark Council know this and

> it is precisely the reason why we were not asked

> about CPZ for the whole area but on a street by

> street basis, because the answer would have been a

> resounding 'no thanks', just as it was at the last

> CPZ consultation- which was not so long ago. So

> unlike Cllr McAsh, I suspect residents on Heber

> Road may be very interested in CPZ on other roads

> in ED, just as the majority of residents who

> participated in the consultation probably are.

The last CPZ consultation you are referring to (2012) covered a much smaller area around Grove Vale. I live in one of the roads which supported this current CPZ proposal and we were not involved in the previous consultation you have mentioned. To be clear this is the first CPZ consultation we have had the opportunity to vote for.

Accept the result that a number of streets around East Dulwich Station, Charter School East and Dulwich Hospital support a CPZ. The Cllr was very clear from the start that is was not an all or nothing approach. I do not understand why a person living outside of the CPZ area would want to impose their will on the people living within it?

Today I have noticed how clear the streets are around where I live and I look forward to the CPZ being implemented.

[worldwiser]

Our street is also clear today when it's usually choked. We will be one street outside the new proposed zone and, along with the dozen surrounding streets I usually try to park on, we will no doubt be the recipient of all your unwanted cars.

Why should we be made to suffer this additional burden simply to enable half of ED to get what it wants? Even if we're not living in that zone, why can't we have a permit to park in your streets? It's the most utterly utterly selfish, anti-community direction this issue could take and unspeakably unfair.

[roywj]

worldwiser Wrote:

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

> Our street is also clear today when it's usually

> choked. We will be one street outside the new

> proposed zone and, along with the dozen

> surrounding streets I usually try to park on, we

> will no doubt be the recipient of all your

> unwanted cars.

>

> Why should we be made to suffer this additional

> burden simply to enable half of ED to get what it

> wants? Even if we're not living in that zone, why

> can't we have a permit to park in your streets?

> It's the most utterly utterly selfish,

> anti-community direction this issue could take and

> unspeakably unfair.

Why should my street remain congested to keep yours clear? If you or your neighbours did not vote for the CPZ then you need to accept the result.

[Penguin68]

And so, Southwark council, your job is done, you have turned street against street, each now selfishly to demand their own parking and then, lo, finding the spaces available to park are severely truncated and lost forever, to everyone, through your imposition of double yellows.

[worldwiser]

roywj - I'm not sure you actually read my post properly. I said our street (and by implication) our surrounding streets are already full to bursting, just as yours are. Both our streets are equally blighted and you come dangerously close to implying the street outside your house is owned anymore by you than it is by me.

The difference being that you on the apparently rarified west side now get calmer streets at the same time that we'll forced to ensure untold misery. You really shouldn't assume which way I voted: whether voting for or against, everyone on our side of LL loses as as result of this. The status quo was perhaps tolerable chaos and one forms a view based on that. What now results is completely intolerable mayhem.

[roywj]

The difference is that the majority on my street voted for a CPZ and the majority on yours voted against one.

The current situation is not tolerable and getting worse where I live with the new school, existing schools closing car parks, sixth formers driving to school, commuters including the train station users, Health centre and long term parking. I do sympathise but the vote needs to be accepted.

[Passiflora]

ed_pete Wrote:

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

> James, you say that ?the majority of people in the

> area I have proposed above want a CPZ on their

> road too.?

> The information on how many voted in favour or

> against from each street is not available in the

> consultation report so is it something only

> available to a select few ? Why has it not been

> publicly disseminated ? Are you making

> recommendations based on information that isn?t in

> the public domain ?

>

> Did the majority of people in the

> Glengarry/Tarbert/Thorncome/Trossachs/Hillsborough

> / East Dulwich Grove and East Dulwich Grove Estate

> vote in favour of the CPZ ? What are the numbers

> ? For those that live in the East Dulwich Grove

> Estate, on which road were they voting for the CPZ

> to be created, as their streets are

> pedestrianised.

>

> You say that your proposal has "boundaries which

> make sense." Make sense to whom exactly and on

> what basis ?

> You have already divided one road into two -

> Melbourne Grove and excluded the part (South) that

> is both closer to the Station and the School and

> Health Centre than other roads that are included.

>

> You are also no doubt aware that 2 hour operation

> times doesn't deter commuters. They simply set an

> alarm on their phones for the time the 2 hour

> window starts and pay by text from work. This

> happens all the time in Herne Hill/North Dulwich

> where there is a CPZ.

It does deter commuters. I live in the Herne Hill/North Dulwich CPZ and since we've had a CPZ introduced in April 2016 we can park in our own street after having terrible parking problems due to Lambeth introducing a CPZ near Ruskin Park.

There are a few pay points to park but they never seem used. To park between 12-2pm in the Denmark Hill/Herne Hill/North Dulwich area you either need to pay for a yearly permit or to issue a visitor permit to somebody parking in the area.

[Abe_froeman]

I don't understand how commuters can possibly be a problem unless you yourself are using your car to drive to and from somewhere during rush hour every day.

[Rockets]

James,

Thank you for replying.

To address some of the points you raised:

"I emphasised that the consultation asked people if they wanted a CPZ on their road because there is some misinformation being circulated to say that 68% of people in East Dulwich do not want a CPZ in East Dulwich."

Firstly, I was interested to read the park car park consultation online response mechanism that allowed the respondent to "oppose the plans in their entirety". Interesting that such a response was not given for the CPZ consultation - why was that?

Why are you pushing the narrative that there is misinformation circulating when your own colleague Charlie Smith says in the SE22 magazine that "the overall response said that 69% of people were against it"?.

"- The Chair took the 3rd option, which I think was the best one available to us. This had nothing to do with any requirement for the Council to have the meeting before a decision is taken - the council?s constitution has no such requirement so a decision could have been taken on the CPZ even if the meeting was cancelled (I would not have supported this option)."

This might have benefited the council but it didn't benefit the members of the community, from both sides, who showed up to have their say and were denied that opportunity.

"- There are plenty of people who want a CPZ in their area (predominantly in the area where I argue there should be one). They are not stooges of the council or under-cover council officers. They are expressing genuine concerns which the council is trying to address."

No-one has suggested they are stooges for the council but the point many of us are raising and you, and those in favour of the CPZ, repeatedly fail to address or acknowledge is the negative impact this implementation will have on the broader community. We would all love to be able to park directly outside our houses but many are sanguine enough to realise that to do so close to Lordship Lane could well kill Lordship Lane as we know it. Why do you only ever pay lip service to these concerns - is it that you really don't care what happens to the thriving Lane community?

"- It is illegal for the council to introduce a CPZ to raise revenue."

As you keep stating but the facts speak for themselves - the council makes a huge amount of revenue from parking (?6m profit annually and counting) so you're hardly being dis-incentivised from rolling them out are you?

And you didn't answer my question on what the council is re-investing that money in - 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?

And just for the benefit of reference from what I can tell Lambeth spent about ?2m on road maintenance in 2017/2018.

- Any revenue that the council does raise goes straight back into public services anyway, it?s not as if it?s syphoned into the bank account of billionaires in the Cayman Islands.

You are a bit obsessed with billionaires in the Cayman Islands...;-) I don't think anyone has suggested that is where the money ends-up and your repeated use of that phrase suggests you believe that because the money goes back into public services we should just all just smile, get on with it and pay it. I know the council thinks that those lucky enough to live around Lordship lane must be rolling in cash but we can all see the trends emerging here (CPZs, brown bin tax, green space car park charges).

- You may disagree with the conclusions I have reached but I cannot see what evidence you have that I am not acting with the best interests of the community at heart.

I really don't think you are acting in the best interests of the community at large. My personal feeling is that you are using the small number of roads around the station to impose a party-political agenda to see CPZs in East Dulwich, knowing full well that those roads will force parking issues into other areas and thus greasing the wheels to get more CPZs across the area. Given the spanking the two main political parties got in the recent local elections one would hope that local councillors would be mindful of keeping the majority of their electorate happy and you must be thanking your lucky stars the elections did not take in place London.

It has been clear from the outset that the council manipulated the situation to create parking pressure (extension of double-yellow lines in only the CPZ consultation area before the consultation started), manipulated the consultation process to guarantee delivery of a CPZ and ultimately care not one jot for the vibrancy of Lordship lane or the views of the majority who live there. It will be interesting to see how the electorate reacts at the next local elections.

[gumshoe]

Hello James,

As you are not doubt aware, there is a lot of disquiet (see https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,2016023) about Southwark?s decision to start charging for the collection of garden waste. Leaving aside the way that this has been communicated to residents (including the assertion that it is only ?fair? for people to pay for the services they use - looking toward to my refund on adult social care then!) - can you please let us know if there has been an environmental impact assessment carried out on this, given (a) the increased use of plastics through the production of separate food waste caddies and (b) the presumable separate collection and associated environmental impact of more vehicles on the road?

[singalto]

Well said, gumshoe. I also think that the council tax banding takes gardens into account. How many lorries will it now take to empty the brown bins and food caddies? The website says it will take six weeks to issue the bigger food caddies during which time we put food waste in the brown bin!

[Penguin68]

can you please let us know if there has been an environmental impact assessment carried out on this, given (a) the increased use of plastics through the production of separate food waste caddies and (b) the presumable separate collection and associated environmental impact of more vehicles on the road?

How many lorries will it now take to empty the brown bins and food caddies?

gumshoe and singalto

The Veolia people on the ground believe that the same lorries will be collecting Garden and Kitchen waste, as now, at the same time, together. They may be wrong. Additionally, if you choose to use paid-for brown paper bags for garden waste these must now be collected on request (like bulky items) - with another diesel lorry making a trip. Potentially, therefore, any street may be getting 3 heavy lorries visiting in a week (if there's a requested paper bag collection) up from the one visit a week currently. Forgetting the additional costs that that would require, just how serious is Southwark in its plaintive cries to reduce emissions and create healthier streets (it's claims for CPZs and other measures)?

If there was a real business case (the sort a commercial company might require) I'd love to see it, and particularly see the environmental impact and cost assumptions implicit in that case. Not that we ever will of course. A councillor could of course try to see it...

[TheArtfulDogger]

James

Are there any further updates since your last message on Star Wars day (May the forth)?

[Earl Aelfheah]

gumshoe Wrote:

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

> Leaving aside the way that this has been

> communicated to residents (including the assertion

> that it is only ?fair? for people to pay for the

> services they use - looking toward to my refund on

> adult social care then!)

I can't bare this argument. It is often deployed for student fees as well. It's basically an argument for total dismantling the state.