Goose Green councillors - how can we help?

[first mate]

Still no response from James?

[TheArtfulDogger]

Tonight there is the Dulwich community council meeting

Tuesday 29 January 2019 at St John the Evangelist Church, 62A East Dulwich Road, London SE22 9AT.

It may be a good idea to raise questions there about

A) the CPZ proposal and what happens if the public reject it

B) why the quiet way is being implemented despite overwhelming objections

C) what is happening along Barry Road and what the results of the recent consultation are

Sadly I can't be there to ask these questions, but I believe that the local councillors need to answer these questions, and be accountable if they aren't representing their electorate

[Hemingway]

Well. I hope James Barber is standing again becuase I'll be voting for people who engage with their local constituents whatever party they belong to, and he used to be present and engage, including with criticism. Momentum Marxists obviously far too busy fighting the class war to speak to the voters that they represent

[jamesmcash]

Dear all

Thanks a lot for everyone's messages on here. I know that this is a hugely contentious issue for which lots of people have strong views. I'm going to try to provide answer all your questions below.

*Why is there a consultation*

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

*Issues with the consultation and what I have done to remedy them*

In terms of its organisation so far I accept that there have been issues. The most significant of all has been regarding late or non-delivery of the consultation packs. This is due to the ongoing issues with the Royal Mail sorting office, and not due to any problems at Southwark Council. Nonetheless, I totally accept that this is not good enough and undermines our ability to consult meaningfully. For that reason, I and your other Goose Green councillors Victoria and Charlie have pushed for the East Dulwich consultation consultation to be extended to the 28th February and there to be a further letter sent out to the SE22 area of the consultation advising residents of how they can get a consultation pack if they have not already. If you have not received a consultation pack then you can get one by

- Requesting one by email [email protected]

- Requesting one by phone 020 7525 0127

- Downloading the documents from the website: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/eastdulwichparking/

Given that some people will have missed the consultation meetings due to the Royal Mail issues we have also committed to organising further drop-ins and meetings for local traders in February (dates TBC).

*Business permits*

It is true that business permits are of higher cost than residents permits. This is because their purpose is for essential business use - like for instance the use of a van for deliveries - which would be unaffordable on a pay-per-hour basis.

*What next*

Zak raises a good point about what will happen next. It sounds like there is some confusion and misunderstanding about it which I want to clear up. It is very similar to the process in 2012.

- Once the consultation is concluded the officers will analyse the results and produce a report and recommendation

- This report will be public and hosted on the Southwark council website where residents will be able to make comments.

- After this a decision will be taken by the Cabinet Member responsible for transport and the environment: Cllr Richard Livingstone.

If the report is ready in time then Cllr Andy Simmons - Chair of Dulwich Community Council - has committed to putting it on the agenda of the March/April meeting before Cllr Livingstone makes his decision.

*Possible outcomes*

In the past the Council has only ever implemented three potential outcomes of a CPZ consultation. These are

- 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.

On the final outcome it is worth noting - to answer MarkT's query - that partial implementation would only apply to a contiguous area, not to smatterings of individual roads across East Dulwich.

None of these three outcomes involved the Council railroading decisions against the wishes of local residents. They are the only options on the table for this consultation too. You have my word on this, and also that of the Leader of the Council Peter John (one of the reasons for the slight delay in responding on here was that I wanted to make 100% sure of this with him).

I note TheArtfulDogger's point about the Spineway consultation and can see how the approach there might appear contradictory with that here. The key differences are that the Spineway is a piece of borough-wide infrastructure which affects a wider body of people than just those living on the affected streets, and also that it was in the Southwark Labour manifesto and therefore has a democratic mandate. The consultation in this case was not to decide whether or not to implement a Spineway but rather to work out the best way to do so. By contrast, the proposed CPZ follows demands from East Dulwich residents and is designed to benefit primarily those in East Dulwich. So if it does not win majority support it will not be implemented.

I hope that this answers everyone's questions.

Best wishes

James

P.S. I am indeed a democratic socialist, which is one of the many traditions within the broader church of Marxism.

[alex_b]

jamesmcash Wrote:

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

> I note TheArtfulDogger's point about the Spineway

> consultation and can see how the approach there

> might appear contradictory with that here. The key

> differences are that the Spineway is a piece of

> borough-wide infrastructure which affects a wider

> body of people than just those living on the

> affected streets, and also that it was in the

> Southwark Labour manifesto and therefore has a

> democratic mandate. The consultation in this case

> was not to decide whether or not to implement a

> Spineway but rather to work out the best way to do

> so. By contrast, the proposed CPZ follows demands

> from East Dulwich residents and is designed to

> benefit primarily those in East Dulwich. So if it

> does not win majority support it will not be

> implemented.

Thank for your response, it's far more than we ever get from the Rye Lane councillors. However, this part does not in any way ring true. The overwhelming objections to the quietway proposals were about the way the scheme was being implemented. Namely that the pointless/counterproductive double yellow lines would make the introduction of a CPZ inevitable and that much of the Bellenden end of the implementation made things more dangerous for cyclists.

As per this consultation it was marred by shambolic public meetings where officers had no answers or explanations for most questions, were completely overwhelmed by the number of attendees and promised to take feedback on board and then didn't.

That after the consultations the views of residents were completely disregarded is in no way compatible with a "democratic mandate".

Also can you point me to where in your manifesto this was? The only commitment related to cycling is on page 10 ("We will make cycling accessible for all, increase cycle hangers where people want them, boost access to cycle hire, and double the proportion of journeys in Southwark done by bike." and there is no mention of the spine or quietway.

[Abe_froeman]

It sounds to me like the council employees come up with ideas to raise revenue, their victims who live in Southwark object, and the councillors elected to face the council down are too gutless to pay heed to the voice of the people.

[Sporthuntor]

jamesmcash Wrote:

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

By contrast, the proposed CPZ follows demands

> from East Dulwich residents and is designed to

> benefit primarily those in East Dulwich. So if it

> does not win majority support it will not be

> implemented.

Demands from a vocal minority (98 households over 5 years out of 8,000 households)...and as you indicate, from around the Goose Green area. Making the scale of this proposal totally disproportionate, and on the face of it a pretty naked attempt to generate additional revenues / drive an anti-car agenda for which little or no benefit will accrue to the community. Indeed, if there is an impact on the local traders we will definitely be taking a step backward - and I know from the drop-in that no impact assessment on local businesses has been carried out. And from discussions with local traders that they are almost universally against the proposal. You might have noticed the posters against the proposal in virtually every shop window.

The other thing that seemed not to have been done was a costing of the consultation process - or at least the poor council employees at the drop in had no idea of what the cost is. If you could share that information with us it would be interesting.

The extreme bias in the consultation documents is pretty shameless too. People are not stupid - we have been here before with Southwark council. I don't think you know this community very well, and unless this process is super transparent and the decisions that follow can clearly be traced back to what the local community wants, I suspect your stay as a councillor will be brief.

[singalto]

I was at the DCC meeting this evening and found the CPZ part of it very frustrating. The councillors kept going on about how many people complain about parking when they go knocking on doors. Apart from James Barber, I have never had a councillor knock on my door, not even before local elections. The woman doing the presentation didn?t really have necessary facts at her finger tips.

[Abe_froeman]

That may be because James Barber campaigned out of hours rather than 9 to 5 mon to fri.

[singalto]

So?

[Rockets]

James,

Thank you for outlining the process, I think what we are interested in are your views on the proposal as it seems a large percentage of the residents within your ward, that you represent, are against it. You rightly point out that this is a hugely contentious issue, namely because people feel the council is trying to railroad this through without considering the consequences.

Let me be more specific:

- the consultation document is full of ?facts? that upon further scrutiny do not stand up and are misleading at best

- parking pressure increased after the council extended double yellow lines, seemingly only in the CPZ area, which many interpreted as an uneccessary and unwarranted move that acted as a pre-cursor and catalyst to justifying the CPZ

- little consideration has been given to the impact on Lordship Lane

- the distribution of the consultation documents has been shambolic at best and how can anyone guarantee that spending even more money will resolve the issues?

- given the distribution issues will the significant numbers of signatures collected by local shopkeepers of people against the CPZ be considered?

- why is the council spending tax payers money on this consultation after receiving just 95 complaints about parking over a 3 year period - which represents just over 1% of the local population?

- is it correct that you are suggesting the highest permissible business rate for local traders?

- you talk about additional drop in meetings but are the views of those who attend going to be taken into account and will you assure us that they will be more professionally managed?

Oh and many of us don?t care what your political leanings; we just want you to represent the views of those being impacted by these proposals.

[singalto]

Rockets, bravo!

[Hemingway]

All the shops/bars I like on Lordship Lane have posters up against the CPZ - the ones that noticeably don't are the chains. That, by itself, tells you a story about who this will effect.

Thanks James Mc for belatedly responding but better late than never so is appreciated

[Sporthuntor]

To add further context - see attached the sort of thing that awaits based on the experience of Grove Park residents after a flawed CPZ scheme was implemented on a very low turnout.

Please ensure you respond to the consultation!

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s72980/Appendix%203%20Pre%20Statutory%20Consultation%20representations%20Referred%20to%20in%20Record%20of%20Decision.pdf

https://camberwellconservationsocietyorg.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/2019-01-10-website-letter-to-southwark-council.pdf

[Charles Martel]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> Labour councillors aren't going to be interested

> in stopping a proposal that taxes rich middle

> class car owners and capitalist business people.

The CPZ is a poll tax that will affect everyone with a car who parks it on the public highway. Home helps and carers will have to pay to visit their clients and relatives. The wide range of people using the community centre on Darrell Road will have to pay.

In the same way that people did not vote LibDem to get a Tory government. People did not vote Labour to get some kind of hysterical Green anti-car agenda inflicted on them.

Rich middle class people tend to have driveways.

[TheArtfulDogger]

James

With reference your comments on the spineway, if the consultation was on the best way to implement it, and the majority vote was against the current plans, what is the new proposal and how is it different from the origional proposed plan

If there is no difference then what are you going to do as our elected councillor to represent the views of your electorate ?

Equally what is the update on the proposed Barry Road 20mph consultation that was run last year ?

[singalto]

An electric car charge point was installed yesterday right in the middle of what would become a long double yellow line if this madness goes ahead!

[jamesmcash]

Hi all

Let me try to your questions.

Abe_froeman - I think that you perhaps misread what I wrote. From the beginning of this process I have consistently said that I would fight for whatever residents opt for.

Sporthuntor - You are of course totally correct that ~100 households is a tiny minority of the total affected area. But given that these are totally unprompted requests, it is quite significant. And these are just the people who actively write to the council. In addition there are the people who raise it on the doorstep. I have knocked on thousands of doors across Goose Green and whenever I do I always ask if the resident has any issues or concerns to raise, without giving any prompting on topic. Parking is second only to Brexit, which I think speaks volumes. I accept that there have been some flaws in the way the consultation has been organised and - as I have emphasised above - I will only support implementation if it wins majority support but I think it was right to give the community the opportunity to have its voice heard.

Rockets - As I said above, my over-riding focus is not on whether or not I support the proposal personally but rather to ensure that the outcome best reflects the will of the local community. However, I am happy to share my personal view regardless. My personally preferred outcome would be partial implementation of the scheme so that the commuter issues around the train station are resolved but that areas which do not currently have issues are not affected. However, I should emphasise that this is just my personal view and I will push for whatever is supported by the consultation.

To answer your specific questions

- There is no guarantee that sending a further letter and extending the deadline will ensure everyone receives notification of the consultation but it is bound to help and will undoubtedly drive up the turnout, so I think it was the right decision.

- The decision will be taken solely on the basis of the consultation responses. Otherwise there is a high-risk of double-counting. I know that the local traders are encouraging residents to complete the consultation so I hope there will be a large and representative response rate.

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

- The views of those who attend the additional drop-in meetings will definitely be taken into account. I do not yet know the date but I am going to try my best to attend myself.

alex_b and TheArtfulDogger - Let me get back to you about the Southwark Spine, this predates me becoming a councillor so I want to make sure I have the correct information before I respond.

Regarding the Barry Road 20mph consultation, the response overwhelming showed that while there was some support for speed calming measures, the proposed lost of parking was considered to be too great. Consequently the local councillors are going to work with officers to bring back a new proposal.

Best wishes

James

[singalto]

James, 100 requests over three years is not enough to implement such a drastic scheme. Have you checked that these are 100 different households and that they still live in the area? There is a real problem with parking in my road but none of my neighbours want a CPZ. If we all complained about the cost of our council tax, it would not lead to a reduction.

[MarkT]

"But given that these are totally unprompted requests, it is quite significant."

Totally unprompted? James, the Council continually publishes an invitation to write in if you want one in your area. How else do people know where to send their request?

Also, we have the enthusiasts reporting on this Forumthat they have been campaigning for years in their areas to drum up this minimal level of unsolicited requests.

At the meeting for local business, the officer initially stated that this CPZ consutation has been triggered by a "critical mass" of requests". This was immediately challenged, so the alternative explanation then given was that each year they count up the requests and plan their next CPZ where they have had the most requests.

They are simply exploiting the domino effect.

[intexasatthe moment]

Just looked at James's twitter and seen this

Labour councillor for @GooseGreenLab, Southwark. Primary school teacher and President of @LambethNUT.

does he sleep at all ?

[rendelharris]

Good for him - we're all very vociferous from our keyboards but I don't see many of us (including me) putting our spare time where our mouth is, so to speak.

[jamesmcash]

Dear MarkT and singalto

By 'unprompted' I mean that residents raise the issue themselves and not in response to a question. When I knock on doors I ask people if they have any issues or concerns. As I said before, the second most common response to this (after Brexit) is parking. If I prompted people by asking "do you have any concerns about parking?" more people would clearly raise it. So that figure of 100 represents not all the people who have concerns about parking but rather just the minority who raise them on the council website.

Of course, singalto is totally correct that these 100 requests are not alone sufficient reason to implement the scheme. But no one is claiming they are. Those requests, alongside the many others who raise it with us on the doorstep, are just sufficient reason to ask the question more widely, which is what the Council is doing.

I have been very clear from the beginning of this process that the consultation will not lead to a CPZ being implemented against the wishes of those living in the area. Presumably you would agree that if the majority supports it then this is sufficient reason to implement it.

Best wishes

James

[jamesmcash]

Hi intexasatthemoment and rendelharris

Sorry I was typing the last post while you posted yours so I didn't see it. Yes I do try to keep myself busy but I definitely find time for plenty of sleep!

Best wishes

James

[MarkT]

James. I should have quoted your sentence in full and not allowed you the opportunity to divert the question. You wrote:

"Sporthuntor - You are of course totally correct that ~100 households is a tiny minority of the total affected area. But given that these are totally unprompted requests, it is quite significant."

Those 100 requests are obviously prompted by Southwark Council. A quick search about parking on the internet takes you straight to this page:

https://forms.southwark.gov.uk/ShowForm.asp?fm_fid=

James, I was not questioning your doorstep style.