E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[StraferJack]

fredricketts

Let's just say all new homes do have parking places sorted - it still means a lot more cars trying to use the same space on the roads, no?

Discouraging car use is a practical position, not an ideological one

[puzzled]

mr barber is a councillor and not a counsellor. you really would have to be disturbed if you went to him counselling

[Penguin68]

StraferJack

The ideology comes in taking a view that a 21st century city is not about private vehicles - granted we are trying to have a 21st century city within a 19th century framework - but nevertheless it is an ideological position which says that car ownership and making space for cars is a less valuable option than some others. Just because you agree with it doesn't make it less ideological. You can also be 'practical' about planning around car ownership - it's just a different sort of practical.

[gsirett]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> 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.

James, sorry but I don't agree with your answer and think you're wrong. Paul Gellard showed me the figures at Dulwich libary last Saturday:

YOUR survey showed that there were currently 691 "safe parking spaces" within the proposed CPZ zone. This figure was based on YOUR consultants counting real cars, NOT on a complicated calculation involving average car lengths.

It was this figure (or the individual road values which add up to it) , I believe that has, in turn been used to help calculate percentages of commuters, etc (please correct if I'm wrong).

I bleive your propsed CPZ allows for 507 resident speaces (although you say 503 above). If the 20% of commuters are taken off the 691, that leaves 552 spaces. This means that there will be c.45 (552-507) fewer spaces for residents under the propsed CPZ, even after we've got rid of the commuters.

I have today written to Paul Gellard to ask him if the raw data from your consultation surevey will be made publically available, allowing independant analysis to be performed on it. This should prevent mistakes like this being made again

[Loz]

puzzled Wrote:

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

> mr barber is a councillor and not a counsellor.

> you really would have to be disturbed if you went to him counselling

Blaim mi spelchequer

[bonaome]

@garnwba:

I think if Barry Hargrove knew that the consultation and roadworks would coincide, he should have delayed the consultation (or brought it forward, he's had 9 months from when the data was collected).

I think that if Barry Hargrove didn't know they would coincide, and no one in his team knew, then I'd say a) he's not up to the job and b) the current consultation process should be abandoned as there are a-priori reasons to believe that the data collected would be affected by the unusual circumstances in which it's being collected.

[fredricketts]

I think the current consultations should be abandoned, as all the areas that will be affected by this, have not had a chance to air their views. And that is quite a few roads in East Dulwich that are not on the consultation list, in fact it seems to have been kept really quite about.

[StraferJack]

"The ideology comes in taking a view that a 21st century city is not about private vehicles "

I'd be interested to review this at the other end of the 21st Century and see how private vehicles (as currently produced) fit in with that definition

I would argue that planning for a 21st century city would negate much of the need for private vehicles

Never mind the 19th century infrastructure, feel the fuel burn

[Penguin68]

Vehicles may in the future be dual or hydrogen fuelled - interestingly more and more people may become 2 car families, with an electric car for the town and one which can get anywhere distant for the country. Both will need parking. In the end, as our lives become less regimented and more free, operating in our choice of 24/7 lives - public transport, based around regularity and repeatability will look less attractive - once we go into work and return, if at all (working from home, not unemployment) in our timing and not within uniform 9-5 the public transport economies, such as they are, look less compelling - but this is very much off-topic. If commuting patterns change (as they may well) then the whole rationale of this CPZ (in so far as it has one, however forced and based on false assumptions and figures) looks even less sensible. Maybe CPZs are just a 20th century solution to a problem we will be seeing less and less of in the 21st century. Another good reason to vote NO then!

[easytiger]

Does anybody know about the unofficial meeting tonight in Grove Vale?

ETA. Thanks Admin for making this a sticky much appreciated.

[gsirett]

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.

James, I live 50-100 m from the edge of the zone (you know that by now) as do lots and lots of other people , I currently have parking stress, and I am about to get a LOT more parking stress. What weighting will my response get ?

[gsirett]

I''ve really tried not to make any of this political but it does seem that Lib Dem councillors in Southwark have got a track record in letting down their constituants with respect to CPZ's

http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/00,news,23819,5222,00.htm

[peckhamboy]

easytiger Wrote:

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

> Does anybody know about the unofficial meeting

> tonight in Grove Vale?

>

> ETA. Thanks Admin for making this a sticky much

> appreciated.

Do you mean the council exhibition thing? It's at Grove Vale library, until 8pm. I'm planning to pop along.

[Penguin68]

I think it is quite clear that the Lib Dems are in favour of CPZs - they instituted the last (failed) ED consultation - which suggests they wanted it then (nobody bothers to consult when they don't plan to take action if the consultation is favourable) and Mr Barber is pretty clearly in favour - (nothing wrong with that except he keeps suggesting a more even-handed approach).

Mr Barber would not see that the introduction would be 'letting down' constituents - as he clearly believes CPZs are good things. The Lib Dem track record is that they want them. So does Labour. There has been a certain amount of weaseling and twisting in all this, but then why would we expect politicians, even local ones, not to act politically?

Speaking with forked toungues is almost a job description requirement - as electors we just have to remain savvy to this.

[first mate]

P68,

Agree with everything you've said, but aren't they supposed to represent us? Not go off in hot-blooded pursuit of an agenda that only they and a few others want? (And yes, I know, it could be a majority do want CPZ, but there is a fair bit of anecdotal evidence to suggest this is not so and therefore, in fairness, it should be put to some kind of public vote/consultation, so we can find out).

[James Barber]

Hi Penguin68,

I'm afraid a big flaw in your argument. The last CPZ consultation was undertaken financial year 02/03. The budget and plans for that following financial year would have been set in Feb 02 when Labour were running Southwark Council.

As for letting down constituents - lots requested controlled parking during the May 2010 elections - i didn't ask officers for this and was surprised when it came up on Labours plans but I'm delighted residents are given an opportunity whether they respond they want it or not.

[kr988]

What you are asking is for residents who feel parking is a problem to put up with a level of parking stress mainly because you are worried it will come your way. It's been said that it will not be fair to local businesses but the plans make provisions for 30min parking within only a 2 hour window so the truth is you don't want the commuter parking (even those parking and working in local businesses) coming to the streets outside the CPZ area. I don't believe either that some petition signed by people using shops in the area who could have come from anywhere should have weight in the decision process. Should we start a similar one outside John Lewis in Oxford street?

We can hammer out the stats till we are blue in the face at each other. You can argue the councils stats are wrong but i've heard the statistical arguments and tend to believe they will be better for someone living within a CPZ as it will increase the likelihood of residents getting a parking spot during the day.

And that is the decision at the end of the day -for the people within the proposed CPZ to make. The idea that people within the area should act as a firewall to preserve the fabric of East Dulwich or to fight the power of local government expanding their revenue streams is nonsense and a different issue. I believe from what I've heard that it is better for me, I am willing to pay for it and want to have it as a trial. Sorry guys but if it overflows on to your road then campaign for your own CPZ or put up with it. I will not be the area's sacrificial lamb for a campaign against taxes either. If this is people's real motivation then it should be fought elsewhere. It is not without merit but again don't expect other to accept the consequences of the stand here. Nobody has come up with an alternative to help the streets that are taking the brunt of the burden so don't expect those within the proposed area to back down under intimidation and not try to improve things for themselves.

[peckhamasbestos]

Let's review in 2 years time. I will be surprised if your views have not changed. Of course, by then it will be too late for all of us!!!!

[first mate]

The overriding objection is that many of us do not believe that CPZ will improve the situation for you or for us. Short term you may get some relief but long term, so the evidence suggests, the situation will be no better, plus you'll be paying for it and we'll be paying for it. No doubt you'll repeat that you are persuaded by the stats, but many of us are not and believe the figures to be flawed. At the very least, if something is to impact on our lives and purses in such a major way, we should be consulted about it properly, not in this piecemeal and manipulative fashion.

[peckhamboy]

kr988 - it's not been offered as a trial. As you say, it's entirely up to you how you respond to the consultation but please don't think you can turn round in 6 months time and say "you know what, I'm still parking 10 minutes away, can you take the signs down now please". Maybe you should be campaigning for it to come in on a trial basis if that's what you want?

Incidentally, I went along to the exhibition at the library this evening. It appears that the threshold for approval is a simple majority of those who respond from within the zone, with a minimum response rate of 20%. That means the council are prepared to bring this in (permanently) with a mandate of just 10% of residents within the zone - meaning that it is crucial for anyone who lives in the zone and has views (either way) must fill in the consultation form as your views will make a difference. Or in other words, 115 people voting either yes or no could be sufficient to decide this.

They also said that if particular roads strongly objected, they could be excluded even if the zone went ahead elsewhere so please don't think it's a done deal and do respond.

[first mate]

peckham boy,

Many thanks for that information. I wonder, who sets/decides the threshold for approval, and does that decision have to be taken within some kind of legal framework?

[katie1997]

Loz Wrote:

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

> 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?

Sorry if this is veering off-topic but that's a question I have seen pop up before on here. Perhaps this should be in another thread but I wonder if there are so many other councillors then are they all allowed to start a thread on here anyway? Don't recall seeing any answer either.

Thanks to gsirett and many others for raising awareness of the CPZ issue and the petition on here, and of course to the ED forum (tu)

[Penguin68]

From today?s Private Eye Rotten Boroughs section, headlined ?Stink in Southwark?.

Southwark Council was criticised by an appeal court judge last week for ?exceptionally murky dealings? which lead to the closure of a successful black-owned nightclub?.Lord Justice Thomas raised the possibility of ?corruption? in the way that Southwark failed to consult [sound familiar?] club owners? ?There appears to be a very strong case of maladministration against Southwark? he said. ?It emerged that Southwark hid, under the desk of a senior manager, vital independent expert reports that should have been shown to the ombudsman, the district auditor and the Fraud Squad? Witnesses heard former Lib Dem leader Nick Stanton offer the couple ?500,000 in compensation, which they accepted. Stanton, who denies the meeting ever took place, later reneged on the deal.

It looks like this consultation will be well up to the demanding standards set by the council.

[easytiger]

Other councillors do use the edf but james barber is like a mad dog with a bone that will not let go and is on here even when in community council meetings as i have discovered. This consultation is unfair and flawed and we shall be seeking a court injunction to stop this as we were not allowed to discuss this at the meeting the other night and the CPZ was accidentally?? left off TFLs programme, and guess what the consultation ends on Friday, convenient for them eh?......

[Zak]

CPZ Objector Petitions: Logistics

I know it's late in the day but......

I?ve spoken to Paul Gillard at Southwark Council who has explained how petitions detailing opposition to the CPZ should be submitted to Southwark ( see below). It would be a good idea to co-ordinate the submission of petitions and make sure that they all go to him in time to be included in the report that he will be writing ( he's the officer writing the report for the Community Council) The volume of objections is going to be crcial.

?He suggests that petitions can scanned in and sent to him at [email protected] Make sure you indicate the road(s) to which they relate and that there is no duplication.

?The council are willing to take into account the views of those in roads likely to be affected by the CPZ, as well as the views of those in the CPZ itself.

*To try and make sure that there is a central record a gmail address has been set-up at [email protected] . if everyone copies their petitions to this address then it?s possible to make sure that they?re accessible, held together centrally and don?t simply disappear into the council ! .

*Finally, if anyone feels able to organise a last minute petition in a road not covered to date, then that would be great.