E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[Saila]

>>>- They also acknowledge that the design is somewhat illogical with respect to the streets in the V-shaped cutout (Oglander, Everthorpe etc). They would have preferred to include additional streets including Oglander, Everthorpe etc, but the available budget does not allow.

This is what i was told yesterday as well. How can excluding a v-shape from the cpz be because of budget restraints?When the council will be making money from cpz??? - this is a genuine question?? How much does it cost to paint some lines on the road? versus the income from the residents who opt in?

Conclusion: a budget constraint means that this particular project will be half completed....

Paul even said to me saturday at the same consulatoin 'yes, i agree those particular roads will get hammered'

*will get hammered*

great

i am against this proposal but if they do it - please dont leave out random roads (oglander/everthorpe) in the middle of the cpz - makes no sense

[Moos]

I'm in the proposed CPZ so will be happy to sign a petition against its implementation.

An online petition on the EDF is appealing, but I don't anonymous votes would carry much weight. We're all goin to have to vote, sign the petition, email our councillors and email our MPs.

[buddug]

I'm double-posting here (first on CPZ fees will rise). But here we go: I'm not surprised at James Barber's stance on this. Oh yes, we all have money to pay for our parking bays, no question. He doesn't even envisage it as another way of squeezing households - and local businesses who would suffer from diminished trade. It was the same when I went to him with the horrific problems I've had over the years having Southwark Council as a freeholder, and his only solution was for me and my upstairs neighbour to buy the freehold. In fact he said it so many times despite my telling him we didn't have that kind of money, that I had to tell him to stop. He believes, or wants to believe, that just because we live in East Dulwich/Peckham borders we're loaded. He has no idea whatsoever of how hard people are finding it to make ends meet in these stricken times, which as a councillor is shocking. He's living in gentrified Waitrose land.

[Penguin68]

I cannot recall either the Lib Dems or Labour campaigning locally at the last election for an ED wide introduction of CPZs - yet it is clear from the actions of the Labour controlled council, and of James Barber in his incohate support of this scheme that this is a clear and certain political agenda. The smokescreen of 'constituents asked for it' is clearly disengenuous - James and the council know that once the wedge is in in the first zone planned, the pain suffered by the ever expanding circle of adjacent streets, a pain caused by the movement of people outwards, and (more) the reduction of avalable parking, will cause the next set of nimbyists and the next to vote for what most never wanted in the first place.

What annoys me most is not the secret and hidden agenda now becoming overt, but the plaintiff cries of Mr Barber that he is not being politcially motivated - which is, in itself, an entirely legitimate thing for a politician to be, but not when he pretends this is all even handed and what the consituents asked for and he is just a servant of the people.

He has a number of times claimed that the CPZ WILL allevate parking problems in the first zone to be designated - even that is an unfounded claim with little evidence to back it, considering the redcution in available space that it will entail.

If Mr Barber would only admit that he believes in CPZs becuase he dislikes cars in towns and likes to see ED people pay towards the rest of Southwark's road related issues that would be something - but his constant theme that he is only doing it for the best of reasons to help his constituents is just so much rubbish - unless he believes that he only represents the few people living in the first CPZ triangle. In which case, in future, perhaps only those grateful souls should consider voting for him.

[peterstorm1985]

gsirett Wrote:

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

> NEWSFLASH from Grove Vale Library

>

> (I did the following calculation with the nice

> chap from Southwark in the library yesterday)

> There are currently safe 691 parking spaces

> available in the proposed CPZ area (although,

> amazingly, they did not have this figure anywhere.

> I had to work it our with the help of the very

> nice council chap)

>

> I think the figure being banded around is is

> c.20% commuters (although, according to said

> nice chap, that does also include the girls

> working in GM?s, some of the people working at the

> hospital, and the nice man from Caf?

> Mirto)........so

> 20 % of 691 is 138. Equals 138 commuters. This

> leaves (stay with me on this).......

> 553 residents are currently able to park in the

> zone.

> The scheme proposes 507, yes you read it right,

> 507 residents spaces

>

> THAT IS A REDUCTION IN 46 PARKING SPACES FOR

> RESIDENTS.

> Residents of proposed CPZ area.......still sure

> you?re lives are going to get better?

Thank you for taking the time with this - exactly what I expected from a perusal of the survey results, consideration of the proposed design, and a walk around the area at approx 9pm on Friday evening. (Of interest was that one of the roads just outside the CPZ, Tell Grove, had 100% occupancy at that time)

I cannot believe that James Barber still thinks that the data supports the CPZ. The only way it can work is if enough people choose not to buy permits. But they'll only do that while they can park their cars within easy walking distance, something that won't last long when the CPZ gets extended, which it undoubtedly will.

[colville09]

I went to the Library on Saturday. I, like most of the people posting, am against the CPZ and living in Oglander think that we and Everthorpe will suffer more than anyone. Saila's post above that "They also acknowledge that the design is somewhat illogical with respect to the streets in the V-shaped cutout (Oglander, Everthorpe etc). They would have preferred to include additional streets including Oglander, Everthorpe etc, but the available budget does not allow." is interesting. I kept asking why we were excluded and got no direct answer. The budget point was not raised only that it was drawn up in meetings with our councillors (James Barber and Veronica Ward) so it is in effect a political decision and not one that the officials feel is logical. When I put this point, the official didn't deny it. Veronica Ward is the councillor for our 'V shaped exclusion' and I presume feels that people in Oglander & Everthorpe don't vote for her anyway. Her email is [email protected] but judging my my own experience can't be assed answering emails about this subject, maybe she is too busy with Olympics jollies. Her mail address is 160 Tooley Street,SE1 2QH - maybe she might respond to post. I'm not saying that James Barber is any better, I'm sure he feels he is defending his political vote as well. I must say the officials baring the brunt of complaints on Saturday were polite but thought it was absolutely fine the way they had consulted (and that is truly insulting). Even a idiot looking at their display boards with before and after photos from streets that had had a CPZ imposed could see that the photographs were taken at completely different times of day. I think it is a complete stitch up and I'm sure they feel we are too stupid to react in any effective way.

[gmackenney]

I agree. A half baked CPZ (due to budgetary constraints) is even worse than a well thought out CPZ. Frankly I'm against either since I don't think these things solve a problem - they merely shift that problem around. The budgetary constraints thing was also pulled out as an excuse to not consult residents in surrounding streets.

Something else I also remembered from the day - one of the parking officers also suggested it might have been more logical to only have the end of Ondine Road closest to Grove Value included in the proposed CPZ. It is interesting that these assertions are coming to light now rather than as input into the CPZ design process! I would not have been able to knock that logic, particularly if it meant that Oglander and Everthorpe were in - this would have led to a design which tied in with the proposed objective of reducing commuter parking.

The fact is no design would be perfect, but this design is a long long way away from that! In fact I would say that the design is primarily targeted towards creating a problem for surrounding streets necessitating extension and secondarily towards creating the impression that it is somehow helping people within the zone.

[Penguin68]

Curiously, there is a name for politically motivated map-drawing in order to achieve a politcial end - it's called gerrymandering (from a constituency with a slight look of a salamander created to make sure of the election of a US politician called Gerry something or other). It looks like we now have a bartriangle to go with the gerrymander.

[gsirett]

Is anybody going to the Dulwich Community council tonight to tell them that you're against this scheme?

I REALLY want to go, but feel that my time may be better spent collecting signitures for our petition (as we only have until Friday) . If nobody else is able to attend, then I will go along

7pm, St Barnabas Church community centre, Calton Ave

[first mate]

Moos,

I agree we should all sign street petitions. However, I thought that an online petition, just a simple yes or no thread in response to the question do you want CPZ in your street in ED?- would be a highly visible indicator of strength of feeling. Anyhow, don't want to detract from the main business of getting proper street petitions underway. It is vital, because it seems clear that Barber et al, have already made their minds up and counting on voter lethargy to get their way.

[Bobby P]

First mate, I think a petition on here would be fine, but I also think that they will quite likely ignore it, judging by James Barber's comments. He even said that the official Southwark Council online petition wouldn't hold much weight (so why have this facility then?).

Basically they will only really consider door to door petitions, which some are doing to their great credit. Obviously this is way more time consuming for some on here to do (which is why I think the Council proponents of this are betting that most residents won't have time to organise it, and discounting the "easier" online route in advance), but anyone who has the time to petition their road should really aim to do so.

Oh, and really revealing information from the Library exhibition, gsirett. Well done for taking the time to do the figures. It just proves, using their own numbers, what we've been saying all along as the "evidence" has come in. The CPZ will actually REDUCE spaces for residents of the affected roads. Why James keeps saying the opposite in the face of this evidence beggars belief.

[louloub27]

I have collected some signatures against the CPZ by going door to door.

Would anyone like me to send these signatures to them to collate with their door to door petitions?

Please PM me.

Many thanks

[James Barber]

Hi Bobby and First mate,

I've told people for and against that the more people expressing whichever view they've expressed the better.

That if they're collecting signatures it would carry more weight if their name and address were clear with the signature. That I personally would expect more weight to be carried if they asked if people were for or against such controlled parking on their street, that if for controlled parking which version and whether if a neighbouring street having it would affect theirs views. It would imply they were surveying opinions rather than pressing for opinions.

Hi grisett,

Tonights Dulwich Community Council isn't discussing this proposed controlled parking - the meeting in January will be. By all means come along tonight but I hope that wouldn't mean you didn't come to the January meeting where it will be a formal agenda item with time to discuss peoples views or that you'll be disappoint at the lack of opportunity to discuss these proposals.

Hi Colville09,

I'm sorry you believe this is a stitch up - I really don't know what the residents responses will add up to. Lots of anti on the forum. An increasing number of anti's via emails and phone calls but still a majority for via those mediums to me. I've repeatedly asked people to formally repond and get their neighbours to respond. Whatever the outcome I'm not expecting it to be revisited for 10+ years as per the gap from the last such consultation.

Hi BrandNewGuy,

Plenty of evidence to suggest controlled parking would reduce or eliminate parking stress for residents in the proposed streets but also plenty of views it would cause more stress with fees and parking enforment and no one is sure what the displacement would mean. To convince reisdents in the proposed street they don't need it or shouldn't want it I've yet to hear of a realistic alternative. Effectively the anti's appear to be asking for altruism from residents that they continue to put up with parking pressures for the greater good of people outside the proposed streets who might starting sharing the problem.

Hi Penguin68,

The proposed roads were presented to ward councillors. I asked if a lot more East Dulwich ward roads could be consulted and I queried the strange shape in South Camberwell ward. But as an opposition councillor I was unsuccessful with that but I did get the option added of any controlled parking if it proceeds of operating 10-12. All day controlled parking would in my opinion have a very negative affect on Grove Vale shops. I also obtained a commitment that despite Southwark constitution the final report will be presented to both the Camberwell and Dulwich community councils for comment before the Cabinet Councillor Barrie Hargrove makes his final decision. Much to my embarassment I'd never spotted that the constitution didn't allow for this - it has never come up before since becoming a councillor in 2006.

[peterstorm1985]

Just a thought, but have the residents of Derwent Grove etc considered campaigning for their road to become a no-through road, ie one end be blocked off. The annoyance factor of driving all the way down a no-through road and then having to turn around and go all the way back does tend to put off a lot of people intent on parking. It might be sufficient to encourage the evil 'commuters' to park somewhere further away without all this strife. At the moment it is terribly easy just to do a circuit looking for a space. I know it would also be annoying for residents but those who drive during the day tend to be slightly less time affected than those who are trying to catch a train so may be prepared to put up with the occasional hassle compared to a (perceived) increased of spaces caused by less commuters.

[gsirett]

WHERE TO SIGN THE PETITION

only a petition stands any chance of stopping this. It needs to be presented by Friday

You can sign our petition to stop the CPZ at all of the following local businesses (they?ve all got copies of the petiotn sheets)

Please, please can as many people try to sign before Thursday, as the petition has to be presented on Friday. So, make sure you stop in for a drink/plant/asprin /newspaper/paintbrush on the way home tonight and SIGN THE PETITION

And please encourage as many people to do the same.

SARP Newsagents (on corner Grove Vale & Melbourne Grove, near station)

The VaLE Pub, Grove Value

Shauns DIY, Grove Value

Dulwich Garden Centre

Mark & Son Newsagent, Grove Vale (Next to Shauns DIY)

Petals (clothes shop), Melbourne Grove

Therapy, Melbourne Grove

Angel Upholstery, Melbourne Grove

Ronnies Supermarket, East Dulwich Grove

Dolphin Dry Cleaners, East Dulwich Grove (corner with Glengarry)

[James Barber]

Hi gsirett,

What does the wording of the petition say?

I'd hate all this potential effort to be wasted.

[Bobby P]

Hi James

Can you comment on gsirett's research from the Library, which he actually did with the Southwark rep, using the Council's own statistics. Does it not seem to completely undermine your assertion that "it's clear from the evidence that controlled parking will resolve the parking pressures for residents in the proposed streets"?

In the face of gsirett's research (quoted again below), does your statement above not seem entirely baseless, contrary to what the evidence shows and therefore misleading?

gsirett.....

(I did the following calculation with the nice chap from Southwark in the library yesterday)

There are currently safe 691 parking spaces available in the proposed CPZ area (although, amazingly, they did not have this figure anywhere. I had to work it our with the help of the very nice council chap)

I think the figure being banded around is is c.20% commuters (although, according to said nice chap, that does also include the girls working in GM?s, some of the people working at the hospital, and the nice man from Caf? Mirto)........so

20 % of 691 is 138. Equals 138 commuters. This leaves (stay with me on this).......

553 residents are currently able to park in the zone.

The scheme proposes 507, yes you read it right, 507 residents spaces

THAT IS A REDUCTION IN 46 PARKING SPACES FOR RESIDENTS.

Residents of proposed CPZ area.......still sure you?re lives are going to get better?

[gsirett]

why would it be wasted James? don't you take petitions from your constituants into account when forcing things on them?

"we the undersigned residents of East Dulwich, opppose the implmnetation of the planned Controlled parking Zone (CPZ) in East Dulwich"

You have gone to great lengths to tell us how this scheme has been asked for by "a significant number local of residents" (turns out to be 45 people over a 3 year period). How it will make everybodys life better (turns out it actually reduces residents parking available). How you're consulting with us (despite nearly everybody I speak to not knowing that you're in a consultation). How it isn't being seen as a revnue generator, as it's revenue is ringfenced (turns out it can be used to repair pot-holes instead og council tax money.

It is my intention to present you with a "siginificant" petition of local feeling

[James Barber]

Hi grsirett,

If a petition isn't answering the consultation questions then it would carry little weight.

Do The people being asked to sign know what has been proposed and the options? If they do then fine but the question you've posed doesn't.

[James Barber]

Hi BobbyP,

I don't recognise the quoted calcualtions from the same conversations I've had with council officers.

[gsirett]

You won't recognise them James

, cos you ain't asked

691 figure, we had to add up ( in the library, with your collegue, using your survey results)

507 figure, again, straight from the pin-board in the library

The rest is maths that my 7 year old could do

[gmackenney]

Hi James, Would you care to share with us the specific numbers you've spoken about in your conversations with council officers to counter gsirett's assertions?

Moreover, I fail to see why the petition needs to answer the same questions as the consultation - presumably the consultation survey already does that. Either you're opposed to the CPZ (in which case sign the petition) or you're for it (in which case don't sign). Seems simple enough to me. After all, the consultation document was hardly presenting a balanced case!

[gsirett]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi grsirett,

> If a petition isn't answering the consultation

> questions then it would carry little weight.

> Do The people being asked to sign know what has

> been proposed and the options? If they do then

> fine but the question you've posed doesn't.

I, James barber, am prepared to ignore a petition by 3000 ( just an arbitrary figure)

Of my constituents whilst driving through a scheme based on 45 complaints

Go on James, type it, just type it

[northlondoner]

Hmmm. James seems like you're not going to answer my repeated question about the council's legal position if it imposes this cpz after a faulty consultation process. Will have to investigate myself.

[Bobby P]

The figures are the ones that were put forward by the Council at the Grove Vale Library consultation. I fail to see how one cannot "recognise" them.

Off out to sign the petition now.