E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[trizza]

Have to say, it does make you wonder what proposals would be being suggested if Derwent and Tintagel had not voted (with v low turnout and only marginally) in favour of a CPZ. I would suggest the council and others would still be referring to a "number of residents" voicing support for a CPZ and suggesting it be introduced in some form.

To try and introduce a CPZ by mainly relying on the outcome of the consultation on two roads seems desperate, but i'm not really very suprised.

As for James Barber, he is taking some flak on this thread. Given his involvement, I don't think it is too much to expect him to state his formal position on the matter. One would expect this would take due account of the views of the whole community.

[gsirett]

Yes, James Barber, that gets my vote too:

you have used this forum for your political ends for quite some time now. You have debated the CPZ with much vigour and constantly stressed you wouldn't decide until the report was out. Its been out a fortnight.

So, can you please tell the people of this forum what your formal position now is? - what will YOUR vote be at the community council ?

[puzzled]

we emailed barber about the cpz today and he replied to us suggesting it was none of our business as we do not live in the streets around the station.

he also had to gall to say he was undecided. he then wibbled on a for a few paragraphs before intimating that he might go for a trial period,

do go away james dear. your cover as a man of the people and/or principle is blown.

[eddie]

When is a consultation not a consultation?

It seems that Southwark Council set up some sort of democracy commission last year, and despite spending 6 months ?listening to local residents and attempting to balance local democracy?, the council just did what it wanted. One local councillor was ?deeply concerned? about this and stated;

?This consultation, what is it good for, absolutely nothing?.it would appear under Southwark Labour?

Was that genuine or just a cheap political dig?

http://jamesbarber.mycouncillor.org.uk/2011/11/27/when-is-a-consultation-not-a-consultation/

?So much for representative democracy?

Regarding another issue, one local councillor has stated he was

?saddened to read that big money appears to have stomped all over another aspect of representative democracy.?

Further on the same councillor stated

?I?ve never read a report whose recommendation was so at variance with the body of the report?

Was this a genuine comment or again just a political dig

http://jamesbarber.mycouncillor.org.uk/2011/12/07/so-much-for-representative-democracy/

I know neither of the above have anything to do with CPZ but I feel that it is important that the local residents and businesses understand what their local councillors say.

[Penguin68]

I am sure that Mr Barber is being very brave to be prepared to represent only a small minority of his consituents against the clearly expressed views of a majority - obviously he has had (but I'm not sure why) till now to hide his clearly deeply felt views about the suitability of a CPZ for his constituents even when they are too foolish to agree with him, but now I am sure he will be prepared to explain in detail why he is happy to over-ride the express (and expressed) wishes of his electorate and why he feels that on this occasion a democratic process has failed.

For any politician to be so convinced of the rightness of his cause that he is willing to forgo the future trust of his constituents on what must obviously be a point of principle for Mr Barber shows great personal courage - I am sure that on other occasions he would strongly argue that the expressed views of a majority should prevail, but clearly this is an occasion when for him they don't.

It is just a shame he didn't feel he could sail under his true colours before this, but I am sure he will have a clear and convincing explanation for his earlier caution to express his true views (save by only putting the case for a CPZ, of course).

[first mate]

We have to ask why, if the various local petitions defeated introduction of CPZ in Bermondsy, we would be tretaed differently...on what grounds?

I too feel that James should do the decent thing and declare his intentions, the more he procrastinates the less credible he seems. If he is any indication of the way other councillors choose to behave on this, then lord help us.

In terms of the community council I would imagine that the 20 people, from various streets, in favour will be implored to appear. This means that we need to mobilize as many heads as possible from the same and surrounding streets to also appear- but we need more than 20.

[James Barber]

puzzled,

I clearly didn't say that. I said I was curious why anyone on Scutari Road would be so anxious about potential controlled parking near East Dulwich station. Equally I wouldn't expect the residents of Derwent Grove to make decisions for you and your neighbours on Scutari Road.

I am undecided at this point and attempting to brow beat wont accelerate or sway me.

As I also explained I have the happy luxury of not having to make a decision until 24 January.

[buddug]

James said: "I was curious why anyone on Scutari Road would be so anxious about potential controlled parking near East Dulwich station. Equally I wouldn't expect the residents of Derwent Grove to make decisions for you and your neighbours on Scutari Road."

Do you live in any of the affected roads then James?

[first mate]

James,

No-one is attempting to browbeat you but you are in a position of some influence on this matter in that you, not we, can write reccomendations, and, as such, I think we have some right to know what your thoughts are. It would be helpful to hear from you what is holding you back from making a decision on this? Is there an aspect that requires clarification? Are there factors we are not aware of? What, for you, is the territory that is unclear? I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask you this.

[peterstorm1985]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> puzzled,

> I clearly didn't say that. I said I was curious

> why anyone on Scutari Road would be so anxious

> about potential controlled parking near East

> Dulwich station.

The word you may be looking for is 'precedent'. Once created, they tend to spring up everywhere. No CPZ at ED station this year means that Scutari road won't be fighting against a CPZ in the years to come. And the closer you are to the station the more dangerous the precedent would be.

[peckhamboy]

On 21 October, James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Calculus,

> But one of the options is for the controlled

> parking to only operate 10-12, which is the

> minimum period thought enforceable and can be

> enforced using the same people who enforce the

> Herne Hill CPZ which operates 12-2.

>

> Hi Trizza,

> I'm just back from a 3 day holiday with the

> family. I didn't get one with them this summer due

> to mothers illness.

>

> Hi Karter,

> I was under the impression such zones boost house

> prices but that wouldn't influence my reaction

> when the consultation feedback is in. And no I

> haven't a clue how people will react on the

> streets the CPZ is proposed.

>

> And yes I do support this consultation and

> residents being asked whether they agree with the

> 40+ who have complained and asked for this. I am

> proud to have ensured one of the options is that

> residents are being asked about any controlled

> zone operating 10-12. And no I haven't prejudged

> what my reaction to residents responses. If it's

> clear they are for or against that will be what I

> try to ensure happens. My only caveat is that the

> views of those on the actual streets will carry

> more weight for me as they have to live with the

> parking stress. Clearly those neighbouring should

> be taken into account but the idea residents in

> Nunhead or Forest Hill have an equal weighting is

> bizarre.

My emphasis, and the entire post included for context. So we can all rest easy, because (i) it is clear residents are against this (both inside and outside the proposed zone), (ii) the views of those on the actual streets (which carry so much weight with him) were nearly two thirds against and (iii) the views of neighbouring streets were even more against and will be taken into account.

I am certain that James is a man of his word and have utmost faith in him.

[Loz]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> The consultation shows that residents on Derwent,

> Tintagel and Melbourne want controlled parking.

James,

In what weird reading of the data does Melbourne Grove say it wants controlled parking? The consultation document clearly states that only 41% saying that they want one, with 47% saying they DO NOT want controlled parking.

Of course, there were 12% undecided - I really hope you aren't claiming the undecideds as supporting this madness?

It is pretty clear that the result of the consultation is a rejection of the idea of a CPZ. I am disappointed that you - of all people - are refusing to heed this result.

[fredricketts]

I sent this letter to Tessa Jowell our local MP.

Dear Tessa Jowell

You may be aware, that it is Southwark Council intensions to introduce CPZ in the roads around East Dulwich Station.

This appears to be done with a minimum of Consultation, (and as I understand it, 50 residents in the area.)

Our concern and some 1549 local residents and traders, who petitioned against this, that it will force vehicles into the surrounding areas, and our streets, are over crowed now.

The Council has been asked to extended the time period and consultation, but have refused, and it is quite obvious, they have their own agenda.

As most residents only found out about it in the last week.

Most roads and streets in East Dulwich are suffering from parking problems, because there are too many cars chasing too few parking spaces, why because of the stupid law that you can build flats and conversions without considering parking spaces.

Would you kindly look into this matter for the residents of Ashbourne Grove, and the other 1500 petitioners?

Have had no reply as yet.

Perhaps those of you that are against the CPZ for whatever reasons should email Tessa Jowell at [email protected]. And ask her to look into the way in which this whole business of CPZ has been handled and is still being handled.

Ashbourne Grove put in a partition to the Council in 2004-5, totally ignored; the Grove still has the same problems, mainly because of BAD PLANNING LAWS.

[James Barber]

Hi Loz,

I believe 3 of the no's counted on Melbourne Grove were commuters and not residents.

Hi Peckhamboy,

My problem is that the consultation was asking individual streets whether they wanted to be part of a controlled parking zone. Hence Q.6 asking whether they would change their minds if a neighbouring street were planned to proceed.

[first mate]

James, I think if you are scraping around for figures like this then to 'believe' is not enough, you need to know as a fact that three of the 'no's counted on Melbourne Grove were communters. Is this the case?

[Penguin68]

I believe 3 of the no's counted on Melbourne Grove were commuters and not residents.

Is there documentary evidence of this, or is it an assumption (or belief)? If they were not qualified to take part in the poll, how were they able to?

I believe (without any evidence) that 5 of the yes's counted on Melbourne Grove were from aliens visiting for Mars. Can I have their votes discounted for the poll?

[gsirett]

JAmes- please tell us how and why you believe that some respondents were commuters.

I was under the impression that the officers carefully checked against electoral role, etc

[trizza]

Reference has been made to a CPZ consultation in Bermondsey where there was overwhelming opposition. I think this is is it: http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=2344

The report shows the following: for CPZ (14%), against CPZ (81%), undecided (5%). This compares with the following for the grove vale CPZ: for CPZ (35%), against CPZ (59%), undecided (6%). The response rate was higher for grove vale: 21% as compared with 15%.

Despite there being a credible data for one street supporting controls on the proposed Bermondsey CPZ (Argyle Way), they seemed to have been ignored. There were two other streets who supported the CPZ but only 1 person responded in each street.

Overall, the support for the Bermondsey CPZ was certainly less significant than with Grove Vale, although it seems the Grove Vale scheme has more opposition from outside the proposed zone.

The consultation document seems to be the usual biased Southwark production - pictures of CPZ with kids in street playing, lots of parking and a pig flying etc. It's clearly a standard document.

[buddug]

James wrote: "I believe 3 of the no's counted on Melbourne Grove were commuters and not residents."

So James, I suppose the ones who voted against in the other streets you mentioned where there was a majority against also included commuters? Are you saying the consultation was so lax and unconstitutional that people walking in the streets were asked how they'd vote?

You've gone too far now, this is shameless.

[Zak]

I wrote to Councillor Peter John on 2/1/12 (attached) asking if we can rely on him, as Leader of the Council, to honour the undertaking made in his open letter of 17/11/11 to residents, which stated ? Please be assured that if the objections outweigh support then the CPZ will not happen?. In the event only 7% of responses ( 84 out of 1159) supported the introduction of a CPZ. Here?s his reply.

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

?Thanks for your letter.

As you point out, the recommendations from council officers concerning this CPZ consultation will be discussed by Camberwell and Dulwich Community Councils in the next few weeks. Obviously this will present an opportunity for members to question officers about the proposals currently put forward, although I can see no reason why either Veronica or I would support any proposal which was at odds with the express wish of residents in the consultation.

As we have stressed before, this is simply not a case of either "our" or "my" proposals for a CPZ, nor is it a question of some malevolent faceless force within the council seeking to "do down" residents at this difficult financial time in order to balance the books - this is not Westminster! This consultation was the result of concerns raised by residents over a lengthy period of time. It is interesting to note for example, that in St Francis Road Veronica and I had received a petition calling for the introduction of a CPZ over a year ago, although the consultation has shown a clear majority of residents in that road actually opposed to any CPZ. That is the reason why consultations are carried out and underlines their real value.

This is an Administration which does listen to residents and will continue to do so!

With very best wishes for the New Year?

Peter John

___________________________________________________________________

My two specific questions went unanswered, but as you can see he states: ?I can see no reason why either Veronica or I would support any proposal which was at odds with the express wish of residents in the consultation".

Are you re-assured? .

[peckhamboy]

James

My problem is that the consultation document also very clearly presented a large CPZ (22 streets and 1159 properties), complete with detailed plan. Your question did not ask "do you want a CPZ on your street even if no other street has one?". Neither did your question 6 ask "would you want a CPZ on your street if the next street was the only street in the area with a CPZ?". I also repeat that no street neighbouring the two streets that were marginally in favour said they would change their minds, so that question doesn't help your argument anyway.

What we are left with is that from an original plan of 20 streets and 1159 properties, you want to implement a zone covering 2 streets, with the support of 27 properties. Or a zone covering a larger number of streets, against the wishes of those streets. However you spin it, that is not what was consulted on. My personal views on the proposals have always been very clear but I would have accepted the proposed CPZ or something very close to it if that had been justified by the consultation response. The proposed options are nothing like the proposal and are not justified - and can only be designed to force a CPZ onto the dissenting areas by the back door. Such a small CPZ can do nothing but push the problem onto the next streets.

Please also note that the majority opposing a CPZ has in fact increased since the 2002 consultation, which resulted in the plans being shelved.

[peckhamboy]

According to the report, three were businesses, and discounting them would give a majority in favour of a CPZ for Melbourne. That conveniently ignores the fact that businesses are still members of the community and stakeholders in that road. If responses from businesses don't count, why include them in the consultation? Or is it just that they can be ignored if they give the 'wrong' answer?

buddug Wrote:

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

> James wrote: "I believe 3 of the no's counted on

> Melbourne Grove were commuters and not residents."

>

>

> So James, I suppose the ones who voted against in

> the other streets you mentioned where there was a

> majority against also included commuters? Are you

> saying the consultation was so lax and

> unconstitutional that people walking in the

> streets were asked how they'd vote?

> You've gone too far now, this is shameless.

[rememberwhen]

Warning.

Today I had to go to Elm Park in Brixton.

A CPZ From 11am to Noon Monday to Friday, has been in operation for about 3 years.

This week it has changed to 8.30 to 6.30 AND has been extended for a considerable distance.

I know this is in Lambeth, but this proposed CPZ WILL creep.

[buddug]

Peckhamboy wrote: "According to the report, three were businesses". Ha! I knew it. And I wholeheartedly agree with your comments on that PB. Commuters indeed. Beneath contempt. This is all very clear, a vast majority in and around the streets targeted are against a CPZ. Therefore, according to James: "If it's

clear they [residents in street affected] are for or against that will be what I

try to ensure happens." However, that isn't the message we're now getting from you James. In fact you're flying in the face of all the evidence.

As Peter John says in his letter to Zak: "This is not Westminster". Maybe James should move there - then he can get his higher house prices ["I was under the impression such zones boost house prices"]. Of course, he adds that this fact would not influence his vote...

[puzzled]

barber asked why we were so concerned about the cpz as we live in scutari road. I replied that we have lived in east dulwich for 25 years (the first 15 in crystal palace road where we helped fight off a previous cpz attempt). we care about east dulwich -- all of it. we have a business in lordship lane that we have built over a decade. we also care about democracy, something that seems to be movable feast capable of many interpretations to barber and his ilk. I wish he was up for re-election in the spring.