Goose Green councillors - how can we help?

[Abe_froeman]

.

[Penguin68]

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.

I think that was the ironic intent of this. But as soon as you start to list those 'additional' things you should pay for, 'as not everybody needs them', you open up to exactly this type of argument meant intentionally. The community charge is levied on the basis of rateable value - so it takes into account (some) differences in ability to pay - associated with the types of demand you might be making of the local authority, inherent in the types of property you live in.

Once you start taking charges 'off the rates' you open up entirely unintended (by central government) opportunities for local authorities to (perhaps massively, eventually) increase their scope for revenue generation - knowing that the majority of their electorate will remain unaffected - and thus keep them in power.

[gumshoe]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> 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.h

Hi rahrahrah- this was meant entirely tongue in cheek - I actually am hugely in favour of subsidising things for the communal good. As penguin68 correctly deduces, I was trying to make a point about the logic deployed by Southwark in making such a statement about fairness viz. chargeable services.

Anyway, to the point of my former post - James, can you please let us know about any environmental impact assessment?

[bubbachumps]

Hello does anyone have any update on the Southwark Spine?

[first mate]

When does Cllr Livingstone make his decisions on CPZ known?

[jamesmcash]

Dear all

I hope you are all well and enjoying the sunshine. I will try to respond to your comments and questions.

intexasatthe_moment

The double yellow lines on the CPZ consultation pack are subject to further statutory consultation - even on the minority of streets where there will be a CPZ at all.

I am happy to look at removing a dropped kerb if it is no longer needed but I would need to do this on a case-by-case basis. Please email me with specifics: your name and address, the location of the dropped kerb, why it should be removed.

MarkT and TheArtfullDogger

Thanks for raising this with me. I have looked it into and am still confused by the reference in this document. Cllr Livingstone is looking into it further but assures me that nothing borough-wide is currently planned. Looking at trends across London and other major cities, it is believed that demand for controls will increase over the coming decades but that is not consistent with the 2025 date you quoted. I will find out more and let you know.

ed_pete

Yes our recommendations are based on a fuller set of information than is currently available publicly. This is due to data protection concerns.

"boundaried which make sense" - i.e you cannot have a road with unrestricted parking surrounded by roads which do not, and if boundaries coincide with major roads this is easier for drivers to understand/remember.

first mate

The people of East Dulwich are very reasonable. Lots of them do not want a CPZ - and most will not get one - but they understand that the parking pressures are different in different places. The vast majority of people who I've spoken to at the Heber Road end of East Dulwich accept that if people living around the station want controlled parking then they should get it, so long as they do not have to have it on their street too!

Cllr Livingstone is due to make his decision next month.

Rockets

I will try my best to respond to as many as possible of your points here!

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?

The CPZ consultation unapologetically prioritises the views of those living on a given street. No one lives in the parks so there is no relevant comparison here.

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 were two discussion about the CPZ. One started at the beginning of the meeting when there were evidently many people there. The second began shortly after the CPZ item's start time had been advertised. So anyone who had attended the meeting with the intention of discussing the CPZ had the opportunity to do so. I totally agree that elements of the meeting were poorly organised and it is regrettable that some residents had to wait befor being able to join the meeting but it is not the case that people were denied the opportunity to discuss the proposals.

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.

Please note that my proposed area would mean no change to parking on the bulk of streets used by Lordship Lane's customers.

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 why has that increased from ?1.7m in 2011/12?

In the early days of Tory-LibDem austerity the council made big cuts to road maintenance. Within a few years it became clear that this was a false economy: the roads were deteriorating and more remedial work was needed. As a result the policy switched to programming more planned improvements. The roads are now much better.

Also, I think the figures you have quoted there might be gross figures which also include investment in cycling infrastructure. This often comes from external sources (TfL etc).

I really don't think you are acting in the best interests of the community at large.

Noted.

gumshoe

I 100% agree with you that public services should be provided free at the point of use, and funded through progressive taxation. Under a future Labour Government, I hope that the brutal cuts to local government under Tory and Tory-LibDem austerity are reversed. Sadly, at the moment, Southwark Council has only 50% of the central government grant it had ten years ago. This leaves the council with only two options: raise revenue, or make cuts.

With two thirds of the council budget spent on children and adults social care, it is very hard to do this without affecting the most vulnerable people in the borough. So while I wish that the garden waste charge was not being implemented, I believe it is the least-bad option available.

In terms of environmental effects the council expects that the positive effects (e.g. more composting) will outweigh the negatives, but this will be monitored going forward. I will look into getting the environmental impact analysis.

Best wishes,

James

[first mate]

>The vast majority of people who I've spoken to at the Heber Road end of East Dulwich accept that if people living around the station want controlled parking then they should get it, so long as they do not have to have it on their street too!>

James,

And is it the wish of the vast majority of people at the Heber Road end of ED to support an all day CPZ in the area around the station or just a few hours? It is interesting that in terms of pro arguments you are suddenly able to look at majority views across various streets instead of on a street by street basis.

[jamesmcash]

Hi first mate

I was just responding to your point "I suspect residents on Heber Road may be very interested in CPZ on other roads in ED". Personally, I suspect that most understand that different parts of the community have different needs.

This is purely anecdotal and was not a factor in determining whether there should be a CPZ around the station. That decision was based on the consultation responses.

Best wishes

James

[jamesmcash]

Hi MarkT

Just realised that the document you linked was a consultation document and not the final version. The final version includes no reference to 2025 and instead talks about a general strategy to reduce car use by 13% by 2041.

Best wishes

James

[Earl Aelfheah]

The problem is that a particular road wanting a CPZ completely ignores the fact that it has knock on consequences for neighbouring streets. It's the council's job to take a broader view based on the interests of the wider community. Politicians are representatives, not delegates to take instruction; this is what got us into the Brexit mess ;-)

It's all reminiscent of the Melbourne Grove saga, where a shouty minority almost got a road closed to traffic with no reference to the knock on effects, or any strategic planning.

[Abe_froeman]

And the councillor that supported that scheme lost his appointment at the next opportunity...

[kiera]

James - do you know whether the former paper sacks for garden waste will continue to be collected after June 1st as they won't have been paid for. It's more than likely that the new ones they say they are going to sell will be distinguishable from the ones for which we didn't have to pay.

NB I know they won't be collected automatically after June 1st - I know that a collection will have to be booked.

[rjsmall]

> I 100% agree with you that public services should

> be provided free at the point of use, and funded

> through progressive taxation. Under a future

> Labour Government, I hope that the brutal cuts to

> local government under Tory and Tory-LibDem

> austerity are reversed. Sadly, at the moment,

> Southwark Council has only 50% of the central

> government grant it had ten years ago. This leaves

> the council with only two options: raise revenue,

> or make cuts.

I (and I am sure many others) ppreciate you actively engaging on the forum but sometimes it would be good to leave out some of the party advertising after all it was a Labour minister who said there was no money left after the last Labour government. (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/17/liam-byrne-note-successor)

[first mate]

>This is purely anecdotal and was not a factor in determining whether there should be a CPZ around the station. That decision was based on the consultation responses.

Best wishes

James<

Hi James,

In terms of your chats with residents at the Heber Road end of ED, you say the vast majority accept the need for CPZ around the station but surely many will have expressed a preference to you for just a few hours to deter communter parking, instead of an all day CPZ?

It is clear that the highly influential organisation Southwark Cyclists are pressing for all day CPZ in as many places as possible, although the majority of ED residents participating in the consultation probably prefer just a few hours to deter commuters. Which option do you support?

[Rockets]

James,

Your response: The CPZ consultation unapologetically prioritises the views of those living on a given street. No one lives in the parks so there is no relevant comparison here.....is ever so slightly condescending and deliberately misses the point....the park car parking consultation allows the community to cast their vote based on their determination of the impact on the local community as whole...the CPZ consultation had no such mechanism to do that and despite that 25% of respondents said, completely unprompted, that they had concerns about the impact on Lordship lane.

And you continue to conveniently ignore answering any questions about your thoughts on the impact on the CPZ on the streets that do not have it.

And per rjsmall I think it is time to stop playing the austerity card - it's wearing a bit thin - we all know the cycle of govt spending - Labour spends, Tories then have to cut, then Labour comes in and has to spend again and so it goes on and on. But it doesn't get away from the fact that Lambeth appear to be spending about 50% less on roads than Southwark.

The Southwark report to which I refer isn't gross spending and doesn't include any money from TFL, it is a section of the report that shows how the multi-million pound surplus made by Southwark from parking charges, permits and PCNs is invested.

You'll find it under the section: How the surplus from parking income has been spent? on Page 38 of the Southwark Transport Plan Annual Monitoring Report 2017/18.

[Earl Aelfheah]

It is a bit much to buy a house right next to a train station and then complain that's it's hard to park. Overtime all that traffic is going to be displaced to those further and further out, as the CPZ inevitably expands (impacting those without a train station on their doorstep!)

[goldilocks]

Do explain....

Commuter parking on the streets around East Dulwich station is most likely from people who live further away - either the other side of East Dulwich or somewhere like west duliwch where the connections aren't into London bridge. I know there have been comments on here about people coming in from Kent, but can't imagine thats significant! On that basis there is probably a finite area within which people would find it useful to park, then walk to the station, before they find that its as quick not to drive to the station at all.

How does this lead to people displacing traffic further and further away? I'd argue that commuter parking has a natural stop point - though whether the proposed area is wide enough to cover that remains to be seen. I would understand the argument more that creep would result from people from inside the zone leaving their cars outside the zone to avoid charges. Whilst there will inevitably be some who will do this, in the scheme of the costs of owning and using a car, its unlikely to be a significant number who would value the saving over the convenience.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> It is a bit much to buy a house right next to a

> train station and then complain that's it's hard

> to park. Overtime all that traffic is going to be

> displaced to those further and further out, as the

> CPZ inevitably expands (impacting those without a

> train station on their doorstep!)

[ed_pete]

@golilocks: To quote an earlier post from someone within the Herne Hill/North Dulwich 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."

So it seems the commuters that were parking near Ruskin Park - possibly because they need to work at KCH or use Denmark Hill station and as a result of the Lambeth CPZ moved out to other nearby streets where there wasn't a CPZ. The result: another CPZ.

"in the scheme of the costs of owning and using a car, its unlikely to be a significant number who would value the saving over the convenience."

I beg to differ and because James is unwilling to share the numbers we'll never know.

[ed_pete]

James - you wrote:

"Yes our recommendations are based on a fuller set of information than is currently (un)available publicly. This is due to data protection concerns. "

I assume that you meant unavailable. As someone that works with personal data and is familiar with Data Protection legislation I would like to understand exactly what the "concerns" are and why they are preventing the information being made public.

I am not asking for the details of individuals. All I am asking for is the for/against/undecided numbers for each street in your proposed area.

How does revealing that cause data protection issues ?

[goldilocks]

But the problem for the Herne Hill zone is that they were largely equidistant from the station as the Ruskin park side. At East Dulwich there is already a zone north of the station so we have exactly the same issue. In Herne Hill the people you are quoting did not live a 10-15 minute walk to the station and suddenly find they had a commuter parking problem, instead they lived a similar distance to the new CPZ and thus understandably found that the commuters were displaced (because it was similarly easy to walk to the station from those roads).

On your second point - lets just stick with disagreeing then - but really - the cost of owning a car is at least ?1000pa if you take into account tax, insurance, depreciation, servicing, MOT etc - there will be a very small number of people in the proposed zone for whom the additional cost isn't sustainable but they wouldn't be sufficient to cause 'misery' on other roads.

ed_pete Wrote:

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

> @golilocks: To quote an earlier post from someone

> within the Herne Hill/North Dulwich 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."

> So it seems the commuters that were parking near

> Ruskin Park - possibly because they need to work

> at KCH or use Denmark Hill station and as a result

> of the Lambeth CPZ moved out to other nearby

> streets where there wasn't a CPZ. The result:

> another CPZ.

>

> "in the scheme of the costs of owning and using a

> car, its unlikely to be a significant number who

> would value the saving over the convenience."

> I beg to differ and because James is unwilling to

> share the numbers we'll never know.

[first mate]

A message from Southwark Cyclists google group to Cllr Richard Livingstone:

"Dear Richard cc Charlie Smith, Victoria Olisa, James McCash. We have seen the backlash against the controlled parking zone in East Dulwich area and wanted to express our support and hope that you will stand firm on the implementation."

[first mate]

A message from Southwark Cyclists google group to Cllr Richard Livingstone:

"Dear Richard cc Charlie Smith, Victoria Olisa, James McCash. We have seen the backlash against the controlled parking zone in East Dulwich area and wanted to express our support and hope that you will stand firm on the implementation."

It should be noted that SC are pushing for all day CPZ in as large an area as possible.

[Rosetta]

singalto Wrote:

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

> 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!

To the local councillors,

How will stickered browns garden waste bins stop other people who haven?t paid from filling up the bins of people who have?

[Rockets]

James,

I notice there is a lot of pavement replacement work going on across your ward and we all seem to be getting brand new paving slabs and kerbs to replace the existing pavement and kerbs. As nice as the new pavements look, how much are yuo spending on them and were these works essential?

[Rosetta]

Hello. Councillors,

Can you please answer the questions about the bins stickering posed on here. Also, when will stickers arrive? Questions about paying for parking in parks need to be addressed as well.