E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[Loz]

northlondoner Wrote:

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

> Play nice, Strafer. No need to get all personal, an' ting.

To be fair, it is starting to get a bit heated in here on both sides. Calm everyone. Getting hot under the collar makes for unpleasant reading and we need people to read this thread. Ad Hominem attacks are not good - play the ball, not the man.

This forum can make a difference - we had a grand debate in here over the AV referendum and I think it was significant in the good people of East Dulwich putting in one of the biggest pro-AV votes in the nation. (Sadly, not everyone in the UK reads the EDF!). The number of people who read, but don't post is, I suspect, very high. This is a great soapbox if used correctly.

Many good points have been made in this thread and the anti-CPZ people have made a really, really good case. People are reading and hopefully it is swaying their vote towards 'No to the CPZ'. Let's keep reiterating those points. Calmly.

[StraferJack]

And I thought I was being satirical not malicious.

I've tried posting reasonably, but the behaviour of one specific individual appears to be reaching some kind of break-down level, and I think James barber is being unfairly treated

But points well made loz

[gsirett]

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> and remember people gsirret has started a petition

> thread so you don't get confused

>

> And to make sure you don't get condused he's

> reminding you here as well!!

>

> And if YOU don't sign up he will look foolish - as

> well as being a 2 dimensional, one-note character,

> he will be a DEFEATED 2 dimensional, one-note

> character. He has told the council that hardly

> anyone wants this and only 200 of you are

> supporting him!!! Come on people!!!

>

> As I've said many a time, I'm against the CPZ but

> this guy and a few of his buds have made me

> hopeful it will go through. I'll be able to tell

> where he lives by the black cloud above his house

StraferJack

I?ve got two answers to you, an emotional one and then a statistical one:

1.Emotional

I'm sorry I've upset you so much. I hope you take great pleasure in me looking foolish, if it happens.

If creating 2nd thread was the wrong thing to do, I again apologise. I?ve also put a couple of posters up, sorry in advance if that offends you too.

From my perspective, I found out about this scheme and consultation about a week ago. I think the scheme is flawed, and I want to have my say. I discover that Southwark are Consulting with a small minority of residents and campaigning strongly to get this through. I decide (first time ever with local politics) to get involved and try to balance out their efforts.

I don?t care if I look foolish: if local people want this flawed scheme, then that?s the way it is. I do not believe they do and I do not believe it will be stopped unless somebody takes some action.

Yes, I?ve banged on about it (you should ask my Mrs) but I think this had to be communicate this to the people of ?greater East Dulwich? if Southwark were intent on not doing so, this forum has hopefully achieved that to some extent. I?ve also been increasingly frustrated by the attitude of our councillors, refusing to listen to the ?no? people.

On that note, I guess I am the "one individual" to which you refer? I'm about to contact James Barber directly becuase, yes, you're right I have had some very strong views about his behavoiur on this issue and have been forthright in posting those views. If you look back through my posts, I have stressed on numerous occasions that I respect James Barber and the work he does. I have also been quite clear that I think his handling/behavoiur in relation to this CPZ has been biased towards a "yes". I maintain that opinion.

2. Statistical reply

a) CPZ proposed on the basis of 45 complaints in 3 years (not sure population of proposed zone,)

b) in 24 hours 200 people sign a petition (approx.) . We?ve asked every one whether ?for?/?against? and, guess what, 2 people are for, the rest against

As a survey ? that IS significant.

c) Bearing in mind that the ONLY publicity for our petition was on this forum, then 200 people in 24 hours, I would say again is not a bad start in terms of numbers. Southwark have had a month to collect responses. A month in which people known to be more in favour have been sent a glossy brochure and our local councillors have added their full weight to the scheme. Now, if only we could get a little bit more time for the consultation...

If I?m being 2 dimensional & one note, again, and that upsets you. Sorry. Probably better to TRY and do something though eh ?

[gsirett]

and one further point, I promise to calm down everybody

[StraferJack]

Blimey sir, good response. Fair play

[easytiger]

gsirett and others are working hard to raise awareness of this flawed and unfair consultation. The councillors last night would not hardly take any questions with regard to this CPZ as they wish to take them in decision time in January. VERY UNFAIR. I was there at the meeting with many other local residents and traders and this is what happened. James and the gang are trying to push this through so dont hassle gsirett SJ, things are tough enough. Join your community Strafer.

[Loz]

easytiger, as he's made clear, SJ is anti-CPZ. Having a pop at him isn't helping the clause, especially after the two in question have just resolved their differences.

So... easy, Tiger.

[easytiger]

ha ha not having a pop, just saying, tis all.

[sillywoman]

and to add to gsirett's petition I'll be coming door-to-door tonight with the petition (version2 - as suggested by james to be 'acceptable' to Southwark council, just in case they get funny about the wording on the one in the shops). I'm aiming to do as much of Trossachs, Tarbert, Glengarry, Thornecombe, East Dulwich Grove (opposite EDH) & Hillsborough as possible. What doesn't get done tonight will hopefully get done tomorrow, or Thursday at the latest.

[northlondoner]

Loz ..." helping the clause" . Nice ..play on words in response to Tiger. I like the way you roll.

[fredricketts]

It would appear that Southwark Council is at it again, not consulting the right areas. They did this on Somerfield?s planning permission for flats above their shop and the car park. They only consulted one person in Ashbourne Grove. This time they have not even bothered to put us on the Consultation list, and the effects of PCZ in Grove vale will have a profound effect on Ashbourne grove and the surrounding area. Ashbourne Grove has been having parking problems for the last 15 years, and the Council have done nothing to alleviate the problems, in fact they waste money on calming measures like humps, which don?t make the slightest difference to the 20 mile per hour speed limit, they still tear down the grove and block the end of the turning. It is a money making concern along with everything they do, it?s for profit, not to help the taxpaying public, we are the ones who, just foot the bill, for their mistakes, and no one is accountable. It?s the Governments, Councils and the Government departments that have got the Country in the mess that we are in.

This is, just so as, residents just outside the PCZ zone will be forced to except the PCZ because of the amount of commuting cars be forced into our areas.

[easytiger]

Fredrickets, fill in the online consultation form and go and sign the petition. The traders association also have a petition against this.

Sillywoman, good work but you need to go into the CPZ zone also to get residents and shop keepers to sign this.

[fredricketts]

Would like to help with the petition in Ashbourne Grove.

Have already signed it.

I only found out about this today.

[Zak]

As a matter of interest do we know where James Barber lives? Does he live in Elsie Road?

[bonaome]

bonaome Wrote:

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

> I've never heard of one being removed once instated.

> I've never known one not expand, once instated.

I think an example has already been given somewhere on this thread.

No. There was a reference to the Herne Hill CPZ, which _has_ expanded on the S'wark side (albeit by only 1 street so far, but ...) and is now under consultation to expand significantly on the Lambeth side.

[bonaome]

It is not the case that the council is pulling a fast one or the people in the CPZ "just don't understand".

THE MOTIVE

The council has a stated objective of reducing traffic in the borough by 3% and sees CPZs as a means of hitting that target.

The proposed scheme would be funded by TfL, hence the funny shape of it, and whilst the council can't make a 'profit' from the scheme (whatever that means) it seems it can use the proceeds to fund other civic projects - i.e. the very stuff of their raison d'etre.

THE CRIME

They have pulled together a "consultation" document which doesn't mention a single disadvantage of introducing the scheme.

They've restricted the consultation to only those living within the proposed CPZ and ignored the adjacent streets, which they admit will 'be hammered'.

The consultation is taking place 9 months after the survey data was collected, and it just happens to coincide with the Grove Vale road works which have suspended all parking on Melbourne Grove, significantly increasing the parking pressure on the surrounding streets at the time of the consultation.

The consultation survey is well structured to deliver an outcome in favour of the CPZ (I spent over 10 years in market research agencies, designing questionnaires*) and I strongly suspect that the data analysis might be looked at in just the same way.

THE VICTIM

Meanwhile the council doesn't really seem to have much of a grip on the numbers. In summary: currently there are 691 spaces, an estimated 20% used by commuters means 553 residents can park. However the scheme will leave only 507 spaces.

I'm not sure I need to bother with the summing up.

[sairahpillai]

Actually when i spoke to the planning official at the library on Saturday he assured me and quoted me an example of a cpz that had been taken away when it hadnt work. He also advised that a years trial was feasable if enough residents requested it.

[peckhamboy]

sairah pillai - that's all very well but I don't recall seeing that as an option on the consultation so realistically how do you think "enough residents" will request it? If this comes in, it's here to stay.

[gsirett]

bonaome, perfectly put

The proposed scheme would be funded by TfL, hence the funny shape of it, and whilst the council can't make a 'profit' from the scheme (whatever that means) it seems it can use the proceeds to fund other civic projects - i.e. the very stuff of their raison d'etre.

To elaborate on the above, Southwark can (and do) use most of the "parking surplus" (profit) to fill pot-holes in the Road and other road maintaince, which would normally come out of our council tax, freeing up said council tac for whatever they want. In other words, they can spend it on ANYTHING indirectly

In 2009/10, Southwark raised over ?2Million from parking permits and a total parking revenue of 11 million. The surplus from parking was ?3.4 Million ! (thats after they've paid all of the wardens, removal lorries and other costs)

Of that ?3.4 million, ?2.6Million or (76%) of it was spent on Road maintainene, and ?400k on "network road managment"

So, Southwark spends 88% of the parking profit on things that would normally be funded by other means NOT on lovely projects to make our lives better.

A number of our local councillors have gone to great lenghths to tell us how this money is protected and can only be used to make our lives better, it isn't used to raise money for the council.................. in fact only ?276k of the surplus was spent on Road safety projects and ?80k on the abandoned vehicle service.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck........it's probably a duck

And, before we have our local bastions of democarcy crying "we don't recognise these figures", they came from here:

http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=15176

Edited to say:

And before everybody jumps on me, I KNOW the council is struggling for money and I KNOW we've just seen very heavy public sector spending cuts and I KNOW the Money Has To Come From Somewhere....I just don't like being lied to, thats all

[puzzled]

on a factual note: it is NOT possible to be unfair to cllr james barber

[garnwba]

bonaome

"The consultation is taking place 9 months after the survey data was collected, and it just happens to coincide with the Grove Vale road works which have suspended all parking on Melbourne Grove, significantly increasing the parking pressure on the surrounding streets at the time of the consultation"

Do you REALLY think the council are clever or well organised enough to pull such a thing off? (no offence James B)

Gsirett - now i am totally lost with your argument. So the surplus cash pays to make our roads better, less pot holes damage to cars etc and you somehow think that is a bad thing...??!?!

[Loz]

puzzled Wrote:

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

> on a factual note: it is NOT possible to be unfair to cllr james barber

How many counsellors are there on Southwark council? Lots. How many are on here engaging with us? One. Having a pop at the one counsellor at least willing to make the effort is somewhat shooting the messenger.

A better question is: why hasn't Cllr Barrie 'Mr CPZ' Hargrove got the cojones to come on here?

[James Barber]

Hi boanome,

The space for parking varies by time of day now as single yellow lines cut in and out. The lowest amount of legal parking (after the yellow lines cut in) is 503 x 5m unimpedded spaces ie not adding up 2 x 8m and claiming 3 5m parking spaces but only claiming 2. This is planned to reduce to 498 with lots of other changes in lines to provide for extra short term visitor parking for the shops. I'm hopeful officers will find a little more parking by removing the parking restrictions where the no.37 bus stop was on Melbourne Grove resulting in zero net change in local parking space IF controlled parking is introduced.

Hi Loz, garnwba,

The resurfacing and other works on Grove Vale have been hugely delayed while local shop keepers concerns were largely taken on board by the council - I highlighted the issues last year and was ignored but am glad they were eventually agreed by the council. The joys of being an opposition councillor. These delays have meant that resufacing works which means Melbourne Grove parking has been restricted have occurred during the consultation. The final step is to lay anti skid surfacing on top of the newly resurfaced road. BUT to do this last step requires dry weather and a dry road surface.

Blaming the council for conniving to delay weather dependent work when the weather has been wet and listening, if rather late, to locals about Grove Vale isn't very fair or likely to encourage them to listen again.

[fredricketts]

In reply to gsirett, you did a good job with them figures. And in law parking revenue should not be for Profit. But we all know it does make huge profits, another stealth tax. Parking in East Dulwich has slowly got worse over the last three years, and one of the reasons is a change in the planning laws, so wisely done by Councils, they allowed flats etc to be built without considering where the new residents of the flats would park their vehicles. Whereas the old law said, ?you had to have parking facilities before you get planning permission. They just flattened half of St Francis hospital; years before they develop it, why not turn it into a station Car park. No, we cannot do that, where would all our new flats come from, with no where to park their cars. It can only get worse not better

[gsirett]

Gsirett - now i am totally lost with your argument. So the surplus cash pays to make our roads better, less pot holes damage to cars etc and you somehow think that is a bad thing...??!?!

Garnwba

Yes, it does, thats a good thing. It could also be used to fund schools, hospitals or lollipop ladies, which I persoanlly think all are great.

But that isn't my point. This is my poimt:

Many people have expressed a view that they see this as some form of tax, it's a "known" objection to CPZ's. Councillors have overcome this objection by telling these people that the money is ring-fenced when it clearly isn't. I think this is wrong.

As I clearly said in my post:

"I KNOW the council is struggling for money and I KNOW we've just seen very heavy public sector spending cuts and I KNOW the Money Has To Come From Somewhere....I just don't like being lied to, thats all"