E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[James Barber]

Hi northlondoner,

I'm not a lawyer and I don't legally represent Southwark Council.

So how can I answer your legal questions?

But the generality..... I presume a standard CPZ consultation process is being followed and other CPZ's have not proceeded and have proceeded following this same process.

I hope this helps.

Hi grisett,

I'm sorry this whole process is making you so very angry. Parking is a surprisingly emotional subject.

If a petition asked a different question to the consultation proposals then yes it could largely or wholly be irrelevant. Equally if we can't tell how local the signers of any petition are then it would carry less weight - it could have several hundred rail commuters not wanting to lose free parking in the area near the station but living a considerable distance from the area.

I've tried to give helpful advice to ensure the petitions against are as relevant and useful for the consultation decision making process as possible. I've given people for the controlled parking the same advice for door to door petitions.

Funnily enoguh givng the same advice to both 'sides' makes me biased to each!

[first mate]

James,

And who decides if the Southwark council online petition asks the right questions? Because I think many of us do not think that it does.

The way you are approaching this does not appear helpful and your patronising manner towards grisett reflects on you rather badly.

I think you'll find that many people will think a simple yes or no answer to whether they want CPZ in their street in ED wholly relevant.

It is alarming that you seem so dismissive of attempts by the community to stand up to politicians and agendas that are being foisted onto us (council taxpayers) without proper consultation.

[gsirett]

I've told you what We're asking and I believe it is the same as the first question on the consultAtion

If you still think it's not going to be considered, then be a useful chappie and tell me why.

We are asking for full addresses and will do some PROPER analysis of results,don't you worry

In the library on Saturday, great emphasis was placed on the fact that there had just been a "pro" petition presented with 50 signatures. Was the same validation done on that petition before it was used as a further argument for this scheme?

[first mate]

James,

Can you please confirm or deny gsirett's calculations on parking spaces that indicate parking spaces will be lost through introduction of CPZ?

[James Barber]

Hi first Mate,

I'm really sorry if I've inadvertantly patronised anyone. Really not my intention.

No one is asking every street in East Dulwich whether they want controlled parking. Of the roughly 200+ streets in East Dulwich roughly 15 are being asked formerly and 7 in the Bellenden area. Yes, ideally streets around those 22 should have been asked as well. Regretabbly not my choice or decision. But I've suggested to people in neighbouring streets that they respond to the consultation and if they feel very strongly that they call on neighbours.

I'm absolutely not dismissive of people wanting to encourage others to respond or sign petitions. But I think its misguided to pretend a petition is related to a public consultation when the petiton question is so clearly not.

[Peckham native]

James Barber Wrote:

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

>

> 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.

>

Well I'm within the proposed CPZ (Ondine Road) and have no parking stress! Can always park during the day within a few car lengths of my house. The only time I've had to park further away is late at night when most residents are home. I was out & about in my car on Friday and several times arrived back at home to find multiple spaces (10+) within sight of my house. So obviously I don't want to have to find ?125 + visitors permits to park where I, at present, can easily park for free!

[James Barber]

Hi PeckhamNative,

Brilliant.

Then I'm sure you'll respond you don't want any form of controlled parking and I would encourage you to talk to your neighbours and get them to respond.

The feedback I've mostly had is from East Dulwich ward residents in the proposed streets (SW of Grove Vale) and they tend to have a very different set of experiences/views.

[first mate]

James,

But then how can you lend your support to such a limited and flawed process.

Also why is it that you have only found evidence in favour of CPZ and talk only of 'views' against. Are you saying there is no downside? Surely a proper research process should reveal pros and cons. You only cite pros- or so it seems.

[gsirett]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi first Mate,

> I'm really sorry if I've inadvertantly patronised

> anyone. Really not my intention.

>

......

> I'm absolutely not dismissive of people wanting to

> encourage others to respond or sign petitions. But

> I think its misguided to pretend a petition is

> related to a public consultation when the petiton

> question is so clearly not.

James Barber, I'm going to come out and ask this straight.

Voters of East Dulwich please take note.

If a petition created and signed by by the people of East Dulwich showed an overwhelming (and statistically significant) opposition to a plan by Southwark Council, would you, as their elected repesentative, feel obliged to present that case, on behalf of those people, to the council?

Is so will you do this with our petition (presuming it is significant of course) to stop this CPZ?

Please don't give me your politicians response. Please reply YES or NO to both of the questions. Just one of those words. Any other reply, I will presume, as will many other people, that you trying to say no without doing so

[James Barber]

Yes I would grisett.

So I will ensure that univeral controlled parking - as per effectively what your petiiton asks doesn't happen in East Dulwich to the best of my ability. This is effectively what the 200/03 public consultatino foud and what the Lib Dem councillors parking survey found.

But the public consultation is about streets near East Dulwich station with two possible versions of controlled parking. And your petition doesn't ask that. I'm also still unclear whether your petition is collecting peoples full names and addresses or just signatures. So it may be hard to decide whether the petition signers are from the area or not. And I would not expect people from outside the area to decide what happen here.

Much as the public consultation for North Cross Road market sunday opening appeared to be widely supported but it turned out nearly everyone in the affected local streets were against it - after residents ran an open petition/survey asknig people the public consuiltation questions. It carried a lot of weight with officers and councillors as it had out consulted the public consultation - full names and addresses and asked about the same options. So I fought for it to not happen and so far have been successful. And well done the residents from those roads that ran such a smart petition.

[sillywoman]

James,

Could you give us a brief example of what type of question would ensure any petition would be properly considered by Southwark council please?

Please hurry as seemingly we only have until Friday (Can this be right? Less than a week from presentation of the facts to the public to closure of the consultation? Did I miss an earlier public presentation?) to collect sufficient data to make clear to Southwark, in as unbiased a way as possible, ED residents opinions of this scheme, and of course we all have jobs & lives to live too.

[gsirett]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Yes I would grisett.

>

> So I will ensure that univeral controlled parking

> - as per effectively what your petiiton asks

> doesn't happen in East Dulwich

No James, as prevoiusly posted, we are asking ""we the undersigned residents of East Dulwich, opppose the implmnetation of the planned Controlled parking Zone (CPZ) in East Dulwich"

Didn't use the word "universal" - that isn't what we want.That would proably mean that we were a bunch of pro-car, Driving is My God Given Right fanatics (with a bit of NIMBY). We're not. In fact I drive once or twice a month (mainly cycle and use ED station). Just think the propsed scheme ain't gonna work (for the whole community that is)

But, it is a positive, we are getting somewhere. If you'll present the petition then that would be a great help for us.

And, I don't think we've done a bad job seeing we only found out about this late last week and we've only got until Friday

[James Barber]

Hi sillywoman,

I would ensure you have full name address with post code. You might want to seperately record email addresses to keep respondents up to date but without them getting into the public domain.

I;'d ask something like:

Are you for or against controlled parking on streets near ED station. IF controlled parking were to happen would you want it to operate mon-fro 8.39-6.30 or 10-12. If controlled parking did happen in a neighbouring street to where you live would you change your mind?

Effectively columns with full name, address, postcode, yes/no, heavy/lite, yes/no and signature. Leave plenty of space so peoples handwriting is legible it also makes the petition feel weighter with more paper.

[sillywoman]

Thankyou.

SW

[Loz]

gsirett,

I am against this flawed concept as much as anyone, but I do believe James is trying to give you some honest help and advice here.

[landellsrd]

whatever James Barber. You and I both know that you meant 'wink wink nudge nudge we all know women cant drive but even my wife can park a car in a 5m space.' I dont care what further you have to say on the matter.

Has anyone else noticed that all you do is DEFEND the scheme? Your mind is fully made up. You're not taking anyone's points into consideration you just answer them in such a way as to defend the scheme. Sounds like a foregone conclusion to me that we're going to get CPZ whether we like it, want it, or not.

I'd like to point out while I live in SE22 but out of proposed zone, I am against the CPZ and I never have or ever do plan to drive to the station, park my car and commute anywhere.

Good luck getting re-elected.

[gsirett]

The Mr Creosote sketch.

The part of The Maitre D is played by Cllr James Barber. The part of Mr Creosote is played by a local resident.

CLLR BARBER: Oh! Very well, monsieur. Thank you so much. So nice to see you, and I hope very much we will see you again very soon. Au revoir, monsieur.

[clunk]

Oh, dear. I have trodden in monsieur's bucket.

GUESTS:[mumbling]

[slurp]

CLLR BARBER: Another bucket for monsieur,...

[goosh]

...and perhaps a hose. M-hm.

CONSTITUANT:

[groaning]

CLLR BARBER: And finally, monsieur, a wafer-thin Controlled parking zone

CONSTITUANT: Nah.

CLLR BARBER: Oh, sir, it's only a tiny, little, thin one.

CONSTITUANT:No. F**K off. I don't want it.

CLLR BARBER:Oh, sir. Hmm?

CONSTITUANT:

[groan]

CLLR BARBER:It's only wafer thin, it won?t cost much

CONSTITUANT: Look. I couldn't afford another thing. I'm absolutely stuffed. Bu**er off.

CLLR BARBER: Oh, sir, just-- just one.

CONSTITUANT:[groaning] All right. Just one.

CLLR BARBER:Just the one, monsieur. Voil?.

CONSTITUANT:[groaning]

CLLR BARBER:Bon app?tit.

CONSTITUANT:[groaning]

[suspenseful music]

[music stops]

[crash]

[bOOM]

[goosh]

[goosh]

[mayhem]

CLLR BARBER:

Thank you, sir, and now, here's ze bill.

===============================

Please note - as well as signing the petitions (details:http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,783328)

, don't forget to fill in the Southwark Consultation here

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200308/current/2280/grove_vale_area

[peterstorm1985]

Peckham native Wrote:

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

> Well I'm within the proposed CPZ (Ondine Road) and

> have no parking stress! Can always park during the

> day within a few car lengths of my house. The

> only time I've had to park further away is late at

> night when most residents are home. I was out &

> about in my car on Friday and several times

> arrived back at home to find multiple spaces (10+)

> within sight of my house. So obviously I don't

> want to have to find ?125 + visitors permits to

> park where I, at present, can easily park for

> free!

But, unfortunately, your street (Ondine) needs to be included in the CPZ otherwise, once the CPZ reduces the total number of parking spaces, there is no chance that those who pay for a permit will be able to 'park within the zone' without it.

It might be worth taking some photographs of spaces outside your house and sending to a few people (perhaps the residents of Derwent Grove - it will be nice for them to know where they'll be parking once they've paid for their permits.)

[easytiger]

Posters have been put up in various shops on Lordship lane and Grove Vale bringing peoples attention to the proposal of the Grove Vale Controlled Parking Zone and also in the 2 community notice boards, ironically next to James barber's poster (please don't take them down james). Boards are on Northcross rd and by ED station. Southwark traders association also have posters going up clearly against the proposal and shall be in most shop windows soon. The evidence shown in favour of the CPZ is clearly not enough to bring in such a harsh measure. Please try and make sure all of your petitions are worded specifically to the Grove Vale CPZ proposal with spaces for names and addresses with post codes. Please keep them going and if you would like petitions to go into shops on LL pm me, BUT, please do not stop your petitioning expecting others to be doing this instead. cheers.

[Peckhampam]

If Peterstorm's reply about Ondine Road is correct it makes me very angry-as I have exactly the same experience as Peckham native-I live in Ondine Road and never have any difficulty parking there in the day-only late at night. Certainly not commuters causing the problem.

[Bobby P]

At risk of repeating myself, here's what I wrote to [email protected], [email protected]

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] - it's important to email these people as well as venting spleen here. And of course to sign the petition, which I did this afternoon at the Hardware Store...

Dear....

I wish to register my strong objection to both the proposal for a Controlled Parking Zone put forward by Southwark Council on various roads, and to the manner in which the "consultation" on this scheme has been carried out.

I live on Melbourne Grove and own one car, so my road borders the proposed zone.

A few points:

- Southwark Council did not consult widely enough on this. It made no attempt to inform residents in neighbouring roads, so that they could have a say on the issue. Clearly Southwark should have informed and consulted not only those who live on roads within the proposed CPZ, but on roads adjacent to them. This is simply common sense, as any displacement of cars to neighbouring roads affects those residents.

- Instead, Southwark did NOT inform us, and we found out about this massively disruptive scheme only by complete chance, through reading the East Dulwich Forum. That in itself in my opinion makes the Council's artificially limited "consultation" highly undemocratic and potentially illegal.

- Southwark has a policy favouring CPZ's. In the consultation documents on Southwark's website, the alleged advantages of this CPZ are listed, but no disadvantages. This is clearly attempting to bias local residents, who may not have had the unpleasant experience of living under a CPZ before, into voting for it.

- In addition to this attempt to bias the results of the consultation, the wording of the Council's online survey question 11 is biased (where the only two choices given are for a whole day zone, or a 10-2 restriction, and one cannot select "no zone" as a option). It's true that on an earlier question, one can vote "no", but it was clear that the wording of question 11 led some who are against the CPZ to select one of the restriction options, as they thought they had no choice on this question but to tick one box to move to the next question. (See ED Forum for examples of this happening). As this makes the survey results misleading (possibly deliberately, but certainly de facto), it must invalidate the survey. Question 11 definitely skews respondents towards selecting at least one type of CPZ.

- The vast majority of ED Forum posters are against the CPZ. A petition against the CPZ has been started by some local residents as a result of seeing this on the ED Forum, but it has started late in the process, as most people were, and still are, completely unaware of the so-called "consultation", having had no official correspondence about it from Southwark Council.

- Figures from Southwark Council's research have been posted on the ED Forum by James Barber and others. We also found out (again, only via the ED Forum, not from Southwark Council) about the Grove Vale Library CPZ exhibition on the Saturday 5th November. Looking at the figures for numbers of residents' cars and for numbers of "commuter" (i.e. non-resident) cars, and calculating the reduction in the number of parking spots a CPZ would bring, it seems that there will actually be less parking for residents on the zoned roads than before.

- This being the case, and if Southwark's own figures on take-up are correct, then there would be displacement of residents' cars to the neighbouring roads. So, not consulting those on neighbouring roads is disingenuous. Clearly, any intelligent resident will see that the Council's plan and intention is to later consult residents on the neighbouring roads, hoping thereby to get a "yes" vote and expanding the CPZ. This will continue indefinitely as residents' cars are displaced further, with less available spaces, until East Dulwich is entirely zoned.

- It is disingenuous because previous surveys of the area found a clear majority against implementation of CPZs. By doing a deliberately skewed consultation this time, on a limited area, with no mention of the downsides, Southwark clearly hopes to get a CPZ by stealth and thence to expand it. This is not surprising in these cash-strapped times, as the Council does, based on their own figures, make plenty of money out of CPZs.

- For the record, living on Melbourne Grove, I have never encountered a parking problem, and can 95% of the time park within sight of my house. And, while this is only the view of one resident, if residents on the roads nearest the station really had a problem, they could cross Grove Vale and park their cars on my stretch of road, then walk 2 minutes back to their houses. It is unrealistic to think either that they should currently have the right to park directly outside their houses in a Zone 2 road near public transport, and it is equally unrealistic of them to believe that a CPZ will make any difference, based on the Council's numbers. It will merely mean a shift of cars onto neighbouring roads, which is clearly what the Council wishes to happen.

- It is one of the pleasures of living on East Dulwich to have this freedom, NOT to be taxed and controlled by the Council, for what we currently enjoy for free. Having lived in a road near a tube station which became a CPZ in Camden Borough, its introduction actively diminished the quality of life there, while making absolutely no difference to parking difficulty, but cost lots of money and time in challenging wrong tickets, checking on one's vehicle several roads away to make sure bays hadn't been suspended, suffering hassle and massive expense with workmen and visitors (including aged parents). In short, it made London living much more stressful.

There is no need to similarly destroy people's quality of life in East Dulwich, nor to stealth tax those who can certainly not afford it in the current climate; and so I strongly oppose the CPZ and the way the Council is attempting to introduce it so it grows incipiently. I will certainly not be voting for anyone on the Council who supports this CPZ, or tries to implement it in this undemocratic way.

[gsirett]

Reminder: Dulwich Community Council 7pm tonight. St Barnabus Church

[gsirett]

YOU COULDN'T MAKE THIS UP..........

My local councillor suggested that I ask Barrie Hargrove to extend the consultation by a couple of weeks "it's a reasonable suggestion, I'm sure he can't object"

You need to read the follwing email thread (start at the bottom).......these people will NOT give a straight answer

(edited to keep names out & sorry about the formatting)...

=========================

[local resident] to Barrie

"At this stage" ? as your consultation finishes on Friday, when may a stage be that you would agree ?

So, I guess your "no mined to agree at this stage", means NO ?

=========================

On 7 November 2011 19:10, Hargrove, Barrie wrote:Dear [local resident],

I am sorry that my answer is not to your liking. I am not prepared to completely rule out an extension but I am not minded to agree at this stage.

Barrie

========================

From: [local resident]

To: Hargrove, Barrie

Cc: Eckersley, Toby; Sent: Mon Nov 07 19:02:21 2011

Subject: Re: Consultation on East Dulwich CPZ Barrie

I will keep asking, whilst you keep giving me an answer saying "it is unlikely". I am not asking whether you agree with my suggestion, I am asking you whether, as the person respsonbile for such a decision, you are prepared to extend the consultation process by two weeks ?

I have asked you formally, so can you please answer yes or no to my question - are you prepapred to extend the consultation process by two weeks ?

Yes or no please

===============

On 7 November 2011 18:53, Hargrove, Barrie wrote:Dear [local resident],

I refer you to my answer given already twice below. Id est, it is unlikely I would agree to a two week extension of the consultation. I think I went to some lengths to set out out for you my reasoning as to why I do not agree with your suggestion. Of course it is your progative to keep asking me if you perhaps don't like the answer I am providing, but the answer I am providing you is as far as I'm concerned given in all good faith.

All best wishes,

Barrie

From: [local resident] [mailto:[local resident].

Sent: 07 November 2011 18:43

To: Hargrove, Barrie

Cc: Eckersley, Toby; Dailey

Subject: Re: Consultation on East Dulwich CPZ

Barrie.

For the third time.

Are you prepared to extend the consultation process by a two week period or not ? I am not, repeat, not asking you to change any other factor (boundaries,etc) of the consultation.

please answer the question

===================================

On 7 November 2011 18:37, Hargrove, Barrie wrote:Dear [local resident],

The implications of what you are asking me is to change the boundaries of the consultation area and this I am not at stage or probably not at a later stage, prepared to do. As it stands, residents outside of the consultation area are welcome to and will no doubt continue to submit their comments, and they will be given due weight by officers writing the report, community council's commenting on the officers report and me making the final decision on whether to proceed or not with a CPZ in the Grove Vale area, around East Dulwich Train Station.

All best wishes,

Councillor Barrie Hargrove

Cabinet Member for Transport, Environment & Recycling

London Borough of Southwark

===========================================

From: [local resident] [mailto:[local resident]

Sent: 07 November 2011 18:30

To: Hargrove, Barrie

Cc: Eckersley, Toby; ; Gellard, Paul

Subject: Re: Consultation on East Dulwich CPZBarry

please provide a direct answer. Stop avoiding the question.

Are you prepared to extend the consultation process by a two week period or not ?

Not change it. Just extend it for a further two weeks?

=============================================

On 7 November 2011 18:26, Hargrove, Barrie wrote:Dear [local resident],

I never say never. But as you will see from my response I am far from

minded to at this stage.

All best wishes,

Barrie

===================================================

-----Original Message-----

From: [local resident] [mailto:[local resident].Sent: 07 November 2011 18:25

To: Hargrove, Barrie

Cc: Eckersley, Toby; ; Gellard, Paul

Subject: Re: Consultation on East Dulwich CPZ

So, please be clear, are you refusing to extend the consultation?

Kind regards

[local resident]

=================================================

On 7 Nov 2011, at 18:20, "Hargrove, Barrie"

wrote:> Dear [local resident],

> Thank you for your suggestion.

However, I am not minded to agree. The consultation area was drawn up in response to the number of complaints by residents in the Grove Vale area. These residents came to Southwark Council to complain that they were regularly not able to park outside or near their homes. This tells me there is a definite problem in that particular locale and our response has been to consult on a possible CPZ.

Clearly there are concerns beyond the boundary areas, some about the current lack of parking space and some about the possible knock on effects if a CPZ was introduced. Despite this CPZ being particularly contraversial, fuelled to someextent by certain commentators on the East Dulwich Forum, I am content that the boundaries of the consultation as were first proposed were correct for this period in time. I remain convinced it best to let the residents within the boundary areas respond and a decision be made, after the relevant community councils (Dulwich and Camberwell) ar invited to comment on the outcome of the consultation. As Councillor Eckersley well knows (although perhaps in fairness he feels he probably feels he needs to pay little heed to East Dulwich Ward and South Camberwell Ward residents as those in Village Ward), any re-drawing of the boundaries which results in an outcome which(inevitably - either for or against) residents within the curren consultation area disagree with will be very vulnerable to accusation of tampering.

Moreover, I am already receiving comments (against) from much further

afield along Lordship Lane about this proposal. I suggest to you, although you may well think it a good thing, that were we to extendthe boundaries of the consultation beyond the vicinity of East Dulwich Train Station we would be drawn into a massive consultation for a very large swathe of the area, particularly Dulwich, which would be unpopular and completely unaffordable, especially by a Council that has just received the largest cuts in living memory to its Central Government grant.

All best wishes, Barrie

Councillor Barrie Hargrove

Cabinet Member for Transport, Environment and Recycling London Borough

=========================================================

> From: [local resident] [mailto:[local resident].om]

> Sent: 07 November 2011 17:41

> To: Hargrove, Barrie

> Cc: Eckersley, Toby; Dailey

> Subject: Consultation on East Dulwich CPZ> Barrie

> I am writing to you to formally request that the current consultation

> on the proposed CPZ around East Dulwich station is extended for a

> further two weeks.

I, like many local residents, have only become aware of the

consultation within the last week, due to information on The East

Dulwich Forum Website.

As it has been stated that views of people in neighbouring streets

will be taken into account when any decision is made, and that

Southwark has not directly contacted any of these people, a two week

extension seems resonable to allow these views to be properly

considered.

I have spoken to Councillor Eckersley on this matter and he is in full

support of extending the consultation

[James Barber]

Hi easy tiger,

I obtained and placed the posters in the two community noticeboards.

[first mate]

Good grief,

I cannot believe what I am reading. What is this "I am not minded" "at this stage" malarkey? What the Councillor means is "no". Given we only have until Friday his stance is disgraceful and frankly stinks. Southwark have concocted a set of rules for this process that suit their own ends. It feels like the whole thing has been done virtually behind closed doors and we the tax payers will be presented with a fait accompli at the end. It more than stinks, it's scary.