E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[first mate]

James, but why, when the council has already received extensive petitions is it now asking for more? It feels as though we are back to square one. What was the purpose of the consultation then? Can the petitions already submitted be re-submitted here? If not why not?

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

Sorry. I thought the people who orgainsed the petitions might want ot present them at the Community Council. I wasn't suggesting more petitions.

[gsirett]

Do you need the same people to tell you the result of the consultation James?

What a joke

[first mate]

It does appear to be one huge circular exercise where results already known are going to be presented, again, for debate- although my understanding of the consultation was that it would be fairly conclusive in itself. If the results are already known and a majority view is clear, what, I would like to know, is the purpose of the debate?

[James Barber]

Each community council has nine Councillors. Most will have read the officers report. Most will not have read this forum.

If you are happy for those Councillors to base their recommendations solely on the officer report of the conusltation and their presentations then fine. But I had assumed you wouldn't be grisett from everything you've posted here.

[gsirett]

I guess it depends on whether the other councillors read it with the same level of bias and pre-determination as you James.

If those others act with a bit of honour, and in order to support the views of their constituants, then the CPZ should be firmly rejected.

[first mate]

James, to be clear, when and how is the final decision made and on what basis?

It is beginning to sound as though the consulation is not that relevant. You make it sound as though inspite of the results of the consultation and the various petitions, all sent to Southwark council and therefore available for all councillors to see, that the real process begins at community councils where councillors need somehow to be persuaded all over again that CPZ is not wanted. And, you seem to suggest, that in some way councillors could still, in their wisdom decide to go ahead with CPZ. Is this correct? I am sure I cannot be the only one that finds the process rather confusing.

[Penguin68]

It's really quite simple, you ask a question, if you don't get the answer you'd like, you ask it again, and again, and again, until the people who were giving you the answer you don't like get bored, believing that they must have made their views clear by now.

Then you take the decision you always intended to take, saying that, at the end, no one was against it.

And you insist you had no axe to grind, you were just following the will of the people.

I said in an earlier part of this thread, and was flamed for it, that this smacked of Stalinism (give or take 20 million dead). I perhaps should have said that it smacked of a totalitarian approach to governance. Do what you want, hide it behaind a semblance of popularism. It has absolutely nothing to do with democracy, liberal or otherwise.

[Bobby P]

Opposers should attend EN MASSE the Council hearings, first of which is on the 10th Jan. That way they will hear the opposition loud and clear.

James Barber is now apparently suggesting that the Consultation (a resounding majority against) will have little actual weight with these people unless we literally shout it in their faces, so I guess that is what we must do. How gauche.

Yes, we did think our work was done and our views made clear, but it appears Southwark is not listening.

[James Barber]

Hi Bobby P,

I wasn't suggesting that.

The consultation shows that residents on Derwent, Tintagel and Melbourne want controlled parking. That residents on Zenortia, Oxonian and Elsie would want controlled parknig if a neighborunig street has controlled parking.

That people outside of those streets are clearly and in very large numbers against them having controlled parking.

So councillors will be faced with weighing up these conflicting demands.

The decision making process is clearly documented in the officers reports. It would appear few have read that document including the most volcal on this thread.

[first mate]

P68, yes in this reagrd it is beginning to feel like stalinist Southwark.

The problem is, and the council knows, many people may not have time to attend a community council meeting, they are too busy trying to stay in work.

Again, I would question the legality of what they are apparently trying to do. By taking it to CC they seem to be able to open the thing right up again and, as you say, ask the same quaetions all over again in the hope they get the result they want. It makes the consultation look like a massive piece of window dressing and a waste of time and money.

Perhaps James can tell us, for want of any other councillor, exactly who at these meetings is meant to represent the majority voice against CPZ? It sounds as though councillors, who make the recommendations, will represent themselves and be empowered to push their personal agendas, rather than the majority view of those who elected them. How can that be?

It also sounds as though we " the little people wot know nuffink" must take the time to go and plead our case at the court of the big man, who alresdy knows what we think, but may or may not choose to listen on the day. We seem to be advised that only if enough of us turn up might he be persuaded to take notice. So if enough of us (and we don't know how many is needed) do not turn up, it will be concluded that the ED public support CPZ. Makes you want to scream.

[first mate]

Well James, are you for or against CPZ on those streets. You have read the consultation, you have heard from residents, you have read this forum, you have had plenty of time to think, what will you be reommending?

[gsirett]

James barber- you are shamefully manipulating the results of the consultation on order to promote your agenda

You are deceitful and dishonest

Shame on you. Shame on you

[first mate]

On the 6th November Zak posted this:

I should add that this person, having spoken to councillors, came away clearly of the view that a majority voice would carry the day.

Politicians need to remember, this is not a 'game', people have already gone to considerable lengths to make their views known and to participate in what we have been assured is a transparent and democratic process.

Was Zak misled?

News from the Exhibition at Grove Vale Library.

We went to the exhibition today and had the chance to talk to three officers, all of whom are wedded to the idea of "needing to manage kerb space" in the Borough. There were a couple of things that they had to say, that forum readers will find interesting:

* When quizzed about exactly why Southwark have intitiated this particular consultation about bringing in a CPZ, they explained that it was as a result of the number of people who had been in touh with the council about parking problems. When pressed on how many people that was, we were told it was around 50 over a period of 3 or 4 years! So few - and they didn't even seem to know if they were all diferent people! So you now know that it's nothing to do with their looking for an opportunity to generate a new source of revenue!

* They went on to explain that if enough people were to object to the proposal,then it wouldn't be implemented. They cited a recent consultation in Bermondsey where they'd had a petition against the CPZ with over 1,000 signatures and they subsequently abandoned the planned CPZ

So above all. if you don't want a CPZ then it seems that one fruitful strategy is to ensure that there are as many people objecting to it as possible - and it shouldn't be left up to Southwark keep count of the objections! There needs to be an independent public record.

Elsewhere there's a post listing the roads where a petition is going round. Those of us who object, need to make sure that all affected roads are covered and that the signed petitions are centrally collated. If you think your road isn't covered then Email the person ( scroll up) who is co-ordinating it. Petitions often don't seem to work, but it seems that this is one situation in which they might.

[Penguin68]

James wrote:-

The consultation shows that residents on Derwent, Tintagel and Melbourne want controlled parking. That residents on Zenortia, Oxonian and Elsie would want controlled parking if a neighborunig street has controlled parking.

Actually - to use your own totaly weird way of dealing with figures it doesn't - it shows that a small majority of people within a much larger polled area were 'sort-of' in favour of a CPZ - but break this down further (as you have done to pick out streets) and you would find (numbers are only for illustration and don't refer to actual people voting) that the vote 'for' is outside numbers 8, 17, 23 and 56(etc. etc.) Derwent, but 'against' outside 7, 14, 24 and so on... So on the councils's (and your) weird view of 'agreement' the CPZ should actually only be trialled oustide the houses that voted for it.

Those 'voting' in favour if adjacent streets are so blighted are not voting for a CPZ per se, they are voting against their street being overspill from a CPZ they didn't want in the first place. You are actually suggesting that people are in favour of 'CPZ creep' as a matter of principle, rather than self protection.

Actually - CPZ creeps - not a bad name for those councillors and apparatchicks working to force this through against the will of the majority.

[first mate]

I am hoping that James will now tell us which way he is going to vote/recommend?

Gsirett will you and the other amazing people that sorted out the petition be resubmitting at the community councils. Is there a lawyer out there who would be prepared to represent the majority voice of ED on the matter of CPZ and make that voice heard at the community council?

[buddug]

There he goes again: "The consultation shows that residents on Derwent, Tintagel and Melbourne want controlled parking. That residents on Zenortia, Oxonian and Elsie would want controlled parking if a neighbouring street has controlled parking."

James, you know very well that only a handful of residents on these six roads wants a CPZ, so please stop this disingenuous use of language and in future say after me: "some residents" or "a few residents", or why not surprise us, and say exactly how many, such as: "four residents on Derwent, two on Tintagel" etc. It's not difficult to be forthright and open, you know James.

[prickle]

Hi Bobby P,

I wasn't suggesting that.

The consultation shows that residents on Derwent, Tintagel and Melbourne want controlled parking. That residents on Zenortia, Oxonian and Elsie would want controlled parknig if a neighborunig street has controlled parking.

That people outside of those streets are clearly and in very large numbers against them having controlled parking.

But this is not true! If you look at the consultation results only Derwent and Tintagel want CPZ (question 5) and only East Dulwich Road and Zenoria want CPZ if a neighbouring street has CPZ (question 6).

It is also a bit cheeky to say that people outside of those streets are against CPZ as clearly a large number IN those streets are also against.

James pls get your facts right - see attached sections from the Consultation results for the actual numbers.

[Bobby P]

Yes, James, your spin on the numbers is clearly not correct - voters' opinions are so plain to see in the Consultation: it is ridiculous to pretend otherwise.

I think first mate's posts are correct. The majority have spoken clearly on this issue. It is highly undemocratic for you to ignore the results of a Consultation that your voters spent their time filling out so as to make their voice heard. You really are acting irresponsibly to wilfully misrepresent the results (a strong majority against the CPZ, both from within and without the proposed zoned area).

James, is it not time to admit your agenda has been democratically defeated and that you now going to drop your support for the CPZ proposal?

[buddug]

Aha. So we finally have proof that James is not being honest with us: Melbourne (8 against/7 for - therefore residents (the majority) do not want CPZ); similarly, Zenoria (7 against/6 for); Oxonian (2 against/0 for); Tintagel Gardens (1 for/1 against); and Elsie (10 against/7 for). Well, James, what do you have to say for yourself? Oh, of course, you only said "residents", but you intended it to mean "some residents". Do you think we're stupid?

[peckhamboy]

James

I'm afraid your blinkered stance on this is totally unsustainable. You are trying to impose a CPZ where it is not wanted, citing the "will of the people", when in fact you are basing your arguments on 27 votes. That is a narrow majority of respondents on two streets. It is not a majority of residents on those streets and it is certainly not a democratic basis for imposing a CPZ. Bringing in a tiny CPZ (even if you can spin the consultation enough to convince yourself that is what "the people" want) will do nothing but exacerbate or create problems in the rest of the area, and is unlikely to make life any easier for the people on those streets. You can no longer dismiss the views on here as just those of a few anonymous people, as your own consultation (despite the clear bias towards the answers you wanted) has overwhelmingly shown that there is no significant wish for controlled parking in the area.

So, please, before you blight the area with the horrors of a CPZ, go back to the drawing board, do some open-minded investigation into what the real causes of any parking difficulties are and then try to address those rather than just bulldozing through a convenient cash cow that makes our lives a misery.

And do it before you lose all of the respect and goodwill you have built up through the good stuff you have done for the community here.

[puzzled]

I hate to say I told you so about james barber. but I did tell you so and now you can se this person for what he is? did someone use the term stalinist? I believe barber should very seriously consider his position. faithful and honest servant of the public will he is not.

time to do the right thing, james.... or go,in god's name go!

[puzzled]

I hate to say I told you so about james barber. but I did tell you so and now you can se this person for what he is? did someone use the term stalinist? I believe barber should very seriously consider his position. faithful and honest servant of the public will he is not.

time to do the right thing, james.... or go,in god's name go!

[Penguin68]

I told you once and I told you twice - but you never want to take my advice - this could be the last time...or not.

[first mate]

Actually, I do believe that we should perhaps reserve our ire for Councillor Hargreaves. After all, it sounds as though he is the one who will decide, and how visible and accountable has he been in all of this? I have little doubt that this whole process has been overseen by him and it is perhaps to him that we should be turning our attention? For all we know James is being used to draw fire on here so that people do not bother to turn up at the Community Councils.

I have little doubt that 'process' is going to be used to the nth degree to try to get the result the council want. I suspect projected revenue from the CPZ already features in council spending projections.