E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[first mate]

It is my understanding that not only does Huguenot not live in Southwark, he lives in a different time zone altogether. Forgive me Hugo, if that is not the case.

[intexasatthe moment]

In my view everything in life is " political " , no need to get hot and bothered and treat the description as an accusation or criticism .

And no need for people to "defend " themselves against a perceived insult .

[Chener Books]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> Chener Books, is it odd? You can provide people

> with information through their door, nailed on

> lampposts and knock on doors as much as possible,

> but there will always be people who ignore this,

> and there will always be people who pretend not to

> have been informed just to cause trouble.

>

> It seems you don't live in the affected area, so

> can I take it that your campaign is either

> politically motivated, or simply to guarantee more

> parking space for your customers?

>

> Penguin68, is your campaign politically motivated

> too, or do you live in the zone?

>

> Just asking, like.

Huguenot has "form".

Many years ago when parking restrictions were first introduced Zenoria was my designated parking street.

For the current exercise I correctly received my two consultation packages as I am in the proposed CPZ.

So for the record.

I live in the proposed CPZ

I work in the proposed CPZ

I have a small business in the proposed CPZ

It "seems" Hugenot would benefit from map-reading lessons.

John K

[intexasatthe moment]

Please ,lets not let this thread get distracted and distorted into another of Hugenot's sparring contests .

Just asking like .

[garnwba]

gsirett "I know 99% of businesses in east dulwich have asked for this not to go ahead"

Can we actually stick to real factual evidence rather than ridiculous Dail Mail type headlines

You don't know 99% of businesses are against it, you haven't asked all of then you are just making wild assumptions.

[James Barber]

Talking to some of the businesses they said they were told controlled parking was proposed for all of East Dulwich and they had not been told that for the roads it is proposed that two options - 'lite' 10-12 mon-fri and 'heavy' 8.30-6.30mon-fri.

So it's hard to know if they're against what is actually proposed if they're responding to something different.

[peckhamboy]

Sounds like a successful consultation then

[sillywoman]

Last night I had to go to bed early with migraine - it was better this morning, but reading through the posts since yesterday afternoon I feel it coming back. Anyway . . .

. . . today/ tonight I'll be back on the case. I'm hoping to door-to-door petition East Dulwich Grove & North Melbourne Grove. We've been given an extension until Monday to get the petitions in - so please, if you see a petition and you have feelings either way (for, or against having a CPZ in the proposed area), sign a petition so your voice can be heard.

[fredricketts]

The only reason that I am campaigning against the CPZ, is because of the crafty way Southwark Council is trying to impose the CPZ on East Dulwich through the back door. It starts with the area around East Dulwich Station, that pushes commuting cars further out to the surrounding areas, then you start to see the parking problems, getting worse, than what they are now, and people panic into accepting the CPZ, which does not guarantee any one a parking space, but makes money for the Council. James Barber said ? Council estates a free? that is not the case, Council estates residents have the first car free, and subsequent cars are ?100 each, and parking on the estates are ?1-50 per hour, and you have to have pay for visitors parking permits. You get clamped if you do not have a visitor?s ticket.

I have had dealings in the past with the Lib dems and Southwark Council, and believe me; all parties will lie to get their own way.

In 2005, Somerfield?s in Lordship Lane, applied for planning permission, to convert the office space above their shop into twelve flats and to extend their premises over the car park. First there was only consultation with the first three houses in the road and special roads picked out by the Council.

At that time, (and still is,) Ashbourne Grove was having loads of trouble with parking rage. The end of the turning was and is still being blocked, and people ,have to back out into a main road, hence the Last six months, spy camera, which come and goes when it pleases, so when its gone, more parking rage. The Council were brining in a new law that allowed houses and flats to be built, without any where to park their vehicles, and the Council were saying? we assume that people in these flats will be using Public transport?, so there is no need for parking spaces. Needles to say after breaking their own Planning laws, by allowing the flats to be occupied with tenants with no were to put their rubbish, So these tenants starting putting their rubbish on the pavement outside the food shop Somerfield?s, What the panning Law said ?was, Nobody could move in to the flats without submitting a plan as to disposing of the rubbish, Member of the public complained right up today. Parking increased in Ashbourne Grove. And the Lib Dems got involved, whilst they were involved they with held the fact that the shops above Somerfield, were in fact, a hostel for ex prisoners, and sex offenders. We had to find this out for ourselves. As I have said before what happens with the PCZ in East Dulwich Station Area, does affect all of Dulwich, and the council have lacked the initiative to consult the residents, who, will have, the knock on affect from this decision.

We all live here, and want what?s best for our families and friends, hence all the more reason for proper consultations with the residents, to thrash out, something that suites all residents, not Councils, that is why we all pay our rates and taxes. For services that we all want. Quote Council 2005 ?I agree that with hindsight, more properties in this road could have been consulted?.

Another point I am trying to make is ?NEVER TRUST POLITICIANS?.

[easytiger]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Talking to some of the businesses they said they

> were told controlled parking was proposed for all

> of East Dulwich and they had not been told that

> for the roads it is proposed that two options -

> 'lite' 10-12 mon-fri and 'heavy'

> 8.30-6.30mon-fri.

> So it's hard to know if they're against what is

> actually proposed if they're responding to

> something different.

See James, once again you shoot yourself in the foot with this flawed consultation. The Southwark traders association were NOT informed of this consultation and they found out only through this forum. You were AGAIN economic with the truth by saying you had informed them when you did NOT and the chair Mr Franklin from Franklins was even present at the September community council meeting to discuss the new crossings. You are only RECENTLY in discussions with SSBA regarding the CPZ. You and yours will be losing many many votes for this.

[Siduhe]

Someone asked earlier on the thread what the law on council consultations is - there's nothing obvious in the legislation I can see that would apply here - lots of duties not to infringe on grounds of sex, age or race etc, but have just come across this case - R (Lionel Morris) v Newport City Council [2009] EWHC 3051 (Admin) which can be found here. It refers to the Sedley requirements for consultation (after another case) which are said to be as follows:

a) consultation must be at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage;

(b) sufficient reasons must be given for any proposal to enable intelligent consideration and response;

© adequate time must be given for such consideration and response; and

d) the product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account in finalising any proposals.

[fredricketts]

I think its about time our Local MP got involved.

[easytiger]

The trader's associations petition that have been sent around the whole of the Grove Vale area and affected areas by the SSBA team clearly states GROVE VALE CONTROLLED PARKING ZONE and NOT the whole of ED.

[gsirett]

garnwba Wrote:

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

> gsirett "I know 99% of businesses in east dulwich

> have asked for this not to go ahead"

>

> Can we actually stick to real factual evidence

> rather than ridiculous Dail Mail type headlines

> You don't know 99% of businesses are against it,

> you haven't asked all of then you are just making

> wild assumptions.

FACTUAL HEADLINE: the SSBA traders association have this week walked around over 230 businsses in East Dulwich and they have had 99% of businesses saying they object to the scheme. They think they've covered off nearly all of the "bricks and morter" busnisses in the area.( and I'm sure you'll agree, if they've missed a few, it is statistically significant)

DAILY MAIL HEADLINE : "luny council in forced parking shocker!!"

[fredricketts]

Most of the sixty odd residents that I spoke to on the doorsteps, were angry about the fact , they had not been consulted about the proposed CPZ, around the station area, as they knew what the knock on affect would have on there streets, and that parking was bad enough as it is.

[Chener Books]

The shops in Lordship Lane from numbers 2 to 24 are also within the proposed CPZ.

[see map]

John K

[milk76]

I love the democratic indignation on this thread.

Surveying people about whether they would like some parking controls on the pavement outside their own houses. How terrible!

Local Councillor responds to some unhappy people on an internet forum by offering them all the information on how to register their concerns about the issue. Sack him!

[bmu]

I think it's abundantly clear that any 'democratic indignation' is about the failure to consult those outside the CPZ who would be negatively affected by the proposal, not about the consulting of those within the proposed CPZ. Knock down an argument that hasn't been made if you must, but don't expect to be taken too seriously. And as for 'unhappy people on internet forums', why wouldn't those ignored by the Council in this way be unhappy about it? And how else would most people in adjacent streets have found out about the CPZ other than through 'internet forums' (I know of only one, but maybe there are others)? Southwark certainly made no effort at all to inform them.

[sillywoman]

Well I didn't make it out last night so I'm aiming to come round this evening. Going by previous evenings It takes me about 2 hours to get 30 signatures going door to door. Is there anyone out there who has an informed opinion on the CPZ, who would like to offer an hour or so to help me petition this evening and tomorrow evening so we can get round as many properties as possible in & around the CPZ zone before sending the petitions in on Monday?

Please PM me if you think you might be able to help.

Thanks,

SW

[dairymilkfiend]

At the risk of bearing the brunt of several angry responses, I live in the proposed CPZ zone, I was one of the 45/50 (depending on who you believe)who have complained in the past about the parking in my road. In an ideal world I would not want a CPZ which will cost me and my visitors money. However, if I use my car during weekdays, around 20% of the time I cannot then re-park anywhere in my street. I have 3 small kids who I regularly have to carry/drag a large distance, across a busy road, from whichever local roads do still have parking spaces, which is clearly a source of stress to all of us. I sympathise with those just outside the CPZ who have not been consulted (which I don't agree with), but the status quo is pretty rubbish too.

[Huguenot]

I was a resident of Crawthew Grove when the first parking restrictions on LL itself were put in place.

It was a sensible strategy to alleviate the jams caused by selfish motorists, 'just popping in' shoppers from 5 mins away and the local traders blocking traffic by selfishly and irresponsibly trying to park and double park immediately outside their destination.

Seething local traders insisted on a militant 'direct action' campaign to stop the restrictions - trotting out the usual garbage about disabled people, geriatrics and young mothers crippled by their young family.

It was no surprise at all to see on the day following the installation of the parking signs some bright spark had driven into three of them and knocked them down.

Now of course we have a more freely moving LL, a better, safer environment for pedestrians, a more attractive public transport system AND - God forbid - a thriving local shopping community.

Frankly it seems to me that opposition to the controlled parking zone is being pursued by people outside the zone who take advantage of these streets for their own convenience.

There is no surprise that these people would reject it - they get the downside but not the upside that local residents get.

A 'tight' time period would target predominantly daytime commuters, and John K is having a laugh if he thinks that restricted parking in such a tiny time period is going to have any impact on his store.

[Chener Books]

> A 'tight' time period would target predominantly daytime commuters, and John K is having a laugh if he thinks that restricted parking in such a tiny time period is going to have any impact on his store.

Huguenot is on "form" with his rhetoric.

I have not said that "restricted parking in such a tiny time period is going to have any impact on [...the..] store."

John K

[Carrie]

Actually Huguenot I think most people posting on here who are against the zone are people who live just outside the zone on the adjoining streets - they are not people who take advantage of these streets for their own convenience - I certainly would never consider driving from Oglander Road to park on Melbourne Grove if I was going to the station - I would walk as it would be much quicker!

I don't think a tight time period will give the people who live in the streets within the CPZ much relief. Whilst undoubtedly there are some commuters who park in those streets (and in my street) a very large number of them will be people parking during the day for short periods - dropping kids off at school, visiting the doctors, hairdressers, ice cream parlour or exercise studio on Melbourne Grove or the shops on Grove Vale.

If a tight time period is introduced those people will just change the time of their visit. As long as Dairymilkfiend and others within the CPZ want to time all their excursions so they return home to park within the allotted 2 hour slot they will be OK - if on the other hand they return earlier or later I think they will find they have the same problem parking as they ever did.

[peckhamboy]

Quite. I can honestly say that I have never parked in the roads within the zone. I also have every sympathy with dairymilkfiend and others who have trouble parking and may need to struggle across main roads with their kids. As Carrie says, the vast majority of opponents from outside the zone are those who live on the very edge of it and are annoyed that the council did not consult them or even inform them of the consultation and concerned about the impact. To people like Huguenot, that means that the opposition is motivated by selfishness. It is of course no more and no less selfish than those who want a solution to the problem that involves dumping the problem on someone else, but it doesn't suit his argument to make that point. Then again, I'm still not sure what relevance the views of someone living on the other side of the world are to what is unarguably a (very) local issue.

Personally, I am not against a CPZ in principle - it may be that it is the best solution available. However, there is no evidence that it will be any sort of solution at all. The "stats" (a generous description) suggest that any problem is largely restricted to Elsie Rd, Derwent Grove and Zenoria St. The council have not for example looked at the nuymber of cars owned by households in those streets to first ascertain whether making it resident only would actually provide the solution residents are looking for. What they have actually done is count some cars on 3 days, have a guess at how many might not belong to residents and then make sure that their proposed zone includes a few streets with plenty of space so that there are probably more or less enough spaces across the zone for most of the cars belonging to residents of the zone. Does that mean people in Elsie Rd will be able to park in Elsie Rd? Not necessarily. If car density is too high for that road, you will still be parking on a neighbouring road or outside the zone.

The council have admitted that across the borough, there is an average of 40% car ownership, but a permit take-up of 11%. If that is true, that suggests 75% of people living in a CPZ who own a car don't buy a permit. Where do they park? On the first street outside the zone of course. So why don't the council think it appropriate to consult those streets? Because the consultation wouldn't give them the response they want (that's effectively what happened on the last consultation). So this way, they turn one "No" into potentially two "yes" votes. Because sure as hell, if the surrounding streets are swamped with refugees from the CPZ, there will be a consultation on extending the zone.

[Huguenot]

I don't understand your final calculation peckhamboy?

Surely if CPZs only covered 11% of the borough's roads that would be 100% of people living in them who buy a permit?

I admire your rather tedious strategy regarding where I live with some humour - the first evidence of somebody with an unpersuasive argument is that they try and prevent other people from expressing an opinion.

Please consider me as a helpful contributor to the discourse, allowing those people who will finally decide the outcome to refine or clarify their opinions, and casting light upon some inconsistencies in the arguments or claims of others.

In that sense I am no more or less than 80% of the other people on this thread.

I'm sure you'd only seek to prevent that if you thought insight, honesty and transparency were not something that you valued :))

Returning to some of the arguments - it should be noted that those outside the area will not be affected as much as those within it simply because the area outside is larger - in mathematical times around 3 times larger.

This means that a reduction in parking density inside by 10% would result in a theoretical increase outisde the zone of only 3%.

It's just maths.

That doesn't take into account the commuters who would get the message that using ED as a free parking lot is no more than being a social parasite. Removing these leeches is likely to have a very positive impact on the ED community.

I look forward to the days when people realise having a car with the subsequent environmental impact (both in terms of our streets and our planet) that it does, is a selfish privilege not a right, and decide the price is not worth paying.

With that I leave you in peace to mull over this rather unpleasant 'some people aren't entitled to speak' strategy.