E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[fredricketts]

YOU WILL.ALL DO AS YOU ARE TOLD."THE COUNCIL IS NOT LISTENING".

[gsirett]

1489 members of the local East Dulwich Community have signed a petition in opposition to this scheme within a 4 day period.

Message just sent to Paul Gellard & Barrie Hargrove

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

Please find attached 3 petitions relating to the proposed Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) around East Dulwich station.

All of those petitions are objecting to the proposals

The 3 petitions are:

a) A petition of 518 residents of the Glengarry/Trossachs/Tarbart Road area. These were collected over a 4 day period.

b) A petition of 660 local residents and amenity users. These were collected in local shops/businesses in a two day period. I am submitting this petition on behalf of Lawrence Roullier-White of SSBA

c) A petition signed by 330 local East Dulwich businesses , collected over a 4 day period. Again, I am submitting this petition on behalf of Lawrence Roullier-White of SSBA

========

Given that the vast majority of people in the area only seem to have found out about this scheme (and it's "consultation") within the last week or so, I think this should sent a clear message to Cllrs Hargrove and Barber.

I now suggest that this scheme is either shelved or a proper consultation is performed (one that takes into account the views of not just the people within the proposed zone)

[fredricketts]

Great job GSIRETT,

Lets see if they are listening, I have some more signatures, I did not get them till Late, will keep hold of them

Given that the vast majority of people in the area only seem to have found out about this scheme (and it's "consultation") within the last week or so, I think this should sent a clear message to Cllrs Hargrove and Barber.

I now suggest that this scheme is either shelved or a proper consultation is performed (one that takes into account the views of not just the people within the proposed zone)

[Loz]

As I said in an earlier post, should they try to push ahead with it then an immediate appeal to the local government ombudsman should be made.

[BrandNewGuy]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> I think arguments that no problem

> exists has'nt helped with this issue.

James, I really don't think anyone is still suggesting there isn't a 'problem' with parking near the station. I certainly haven't, despite you implying it in a previous post.

What I have suggested is that it's possible that this parking situation is a predicament, ie a problem that doesn't currently have a solution. If any alternative course of action is either worse or no better than the current state of affairs, then we have a predicament.

To assume that there *must* be a solution is not necessarily right. It seems to me that the CPZ has been proposed as the 'solution' and the data and local opinion have been and are being shoehorned to make that solution look like the right one.

And it's worth repeating that those opposed to the CPZ are not obliged to come up with an alternative to it. The current state of affairs may well be currently the best option for all those who would be affected by the CPZ. I know that's no comfort for those whose complaints led to the proposed CPZ, but in some situations there's no getting around that there will be winners and losers.

IMHO, it should be the Council's democratic obligation not to favour one group of potential 'winners' over any other group, but to try as far as possible to pursue the general good. The lack of transparency and the inadequacy of the data so far has made that process much more difficult.

[fredricketts]

What can we expect, when Gov and Council changed the planning laws, to allow more and more people in to the Dulwich area? And conversions allowed without any reference as to parking spaces. Because of the rubbish transport services, these people have cars, and parking space has become a premium, and the council allow Car parks to be built on. This consultation should be abandoned, and a fresh one started with all residents affect.

[JeffJames]

I intended to visit the Minet Library to-day. However, since my last visit, Lambeth Council have introduced a ring of pernicious parking restrictions around the area, not the least being a ?3 per hour parking charge. I turned back and went to the cafe in Dulwich Park for coffee and cake. Much to my surprise there on the counter was a parking protest petition form. As it reads, Dulwich is likely to get the same treatment from Southwark that has been imposed on Lambeth residents. Don't let this happen! It will ruin the area!

[StraferJack]

be fair peckhamasbestos, there are days in a car which are just as frustrating

2-3 hours to cross London

Jams on the m25/m3/m4

a tyre bursts

it's raining

no parking spot at the other end (bleedin' locals and their CPZs)

it's not all gravy

[buddug]

James Barber said:

> I think arguments that no problem

> exists has'nt helped with this issue.

I think blowing this so-called problem out of

all proportion hasn't helped with this issue.

Lets face it, a handful of people, was it 45, originally came to you complaining they couldn't park in their streets anymore (a handful compared to the 1,400-odd who've signed the petitions against the CPZ). I live in Oglander and, yes, although I've noticed a growing number of non-residents coming to park here, I never have a problem parking near my home. I think what's bugging some people is they can't park directly outside their houses so easily now.

[northlondoner]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> peckhamasbestos Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > moral?

> >

> > public transport stinks.....apologies if you

> have

> > to rely upon it, but generally I don't, and

> will

> > never agan because it just doesn't work!

> >

> > you will not get me out of the only solidly

> > reliable form of transport which is my car ( &

> > bike) until there is a cohesive and reliable

> > transport network in SE London!

>

> Moral: check TFL's website and you'd know that

> there were no trains from ED this week and no

> Northern Line Bank branch. We went from ED to

> Camden and back last night on public transport and

> it was a breeze (176 to Waterloo, Northern Line to

> Camden Town). Just sayin'...

Surely the onus is on the service provider to provide the service - rather than the customer to check before making every journey. Do you make a note of all the suspended services before setting out just in case you decide to do something crazy - like deciding on the spur of the moment go somewhere in addition to your carefully mapped out original route? Wild idea, I know!

I travelled by public transport on Saturday to Kensington then White City then Waterloo. No suspended services but the most balls achingly crammed trains - even at 0700. I can't stand driving, a lot of the time - but the transport system sucks so badly I will drive next time. Its now wonder we have such high levels of car ownership.

[Bobby P]

gsirett, sillywoman et al - great job getting this many signatures in such a short space of time. fredricketts, you should add yours as they are looking at them kinda now....

I think, irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the CPZ, the Council does have to properly consult all those affected, i.e. at the very least all those in the immediate area, before they can in any way claim they have a mandate to continue. And I think this petition shows it. Imagine how many signatures this would have had if people had actually been informed and there were more than 4 days to collect responses. It is strong evidence of the weight of local opinion and the need for a proper consultation...

[Huguenot]

Is anybody really surprised that there are many 'against' signatures? What I'm surprised about is that those people who signed it haven't realised the implications of what they've done:

Firstly, if you don't live in the CPZ the in general you will either be indifferent to it, or against it.

Nobody outside the CPZ is going to vote in favour of it because it's illogical to vote in favour of a restriction that affects someone else's street, it would seem rude.

There's only two* valid reasons to vote against it if you are outside the zone.

Either:

(a) you think the problem will be transferred to you, in which case you accept there is a problem

(b) you use that zone to park in when you use the station, in which case you're part of the problem

So inadvertently every single one of those votes against the CPZ from people outside the zone are in fact the very proof that the zone needs to be created.

Hence in any logical assessment a vote against the CPZ by residents who live outside the zone is in effect a vote in favour of the CPZ.

*It's possible that you have a political agenda which is indifferent to the actual situation, in which case your objection is not valid by definition.

[gmackenney]

Over simplified again huguenot. How about

© You are convinced that the council (either deliberately or otherwise) will make a more acute problem for those just outside the zone than the problem that currently exists inside the zone.

(d) You believe that the CPZ will create problems where none exist today.

(e) You are concerned that the CPZ will spread, fundamentally changing the character of the area

(f) You don't believe that the parking problems which are suffered by the few streets in the zone which have them should result the whole area being swallowed by a CPZ.

(g) Bluntly and quite selfishly, you don't want to live in a CPZ

None of the above are any more right or wrong than those for the CPZ. Of course the petition is going to be made up largely of opposition. The opposition the council are conveniently trying to ignore.

[gmackenney]

Also, I don't think the fact there is a problem is disputed. What's disputed is whether the 'solution' will work.

[first mate]

.

[Huguenot]

If you don't want to live in a CPZ that's entirely fair - but that's no justification to prevent other people who DO want to live in a CPZ from doing so.

These arguments about 'thin end of the wedge' and 'whole area being swallowed' ('e' to 'g' in your example) are a completely irrational escalation. You will get the chance to decide on a CPZ for your area if there is a CPZ being discussed for your area.

These claims are a highly cyncial ploy designed to negate rational debate, and inflate mob hysteria - see 'reds under the beds' and 'monsters in the cupboard'.

I don't believe that the council are deliberately trying to ignore the 'no' vote at all.

There's an imbalance in the relationship - the 'no' camp are abusing local residents by trying to force them to carry the brunt of commuter problems whilst using their streets as a convenient parking lot when shopping. The 'yes' camp have no such recourse.

The 'no' camp are indulging in the most obtuse form of bullying with zero come-back.

The council are rightfully trying to prioritise the needs of local residents who should have a say in whether their own residential area gets turned into a parking lot by parasitic commuters and convenience shoppers.

[gsirett]

Huguenot

You just do t seem to get it

I don't think anybody is denying that there is a parking problem in the area.

But, the proposed cpz simply will not fix it... It will move the problem from one place to another.

The problem is that the zone, as proposed, is much too small. There is still plenty of parking outside CPZ within 5 mins walk of the station, so it won't stop commuters

Plus, many if these "commuters" are likely to be workers at the hospital, GM's, the chemist, etc. They will still park in the area

The question is: is the overall life of people ( both in and out of CPZ) better or worse with this scheme. I believe it will be worse. That is my opinion. The problem is, the council haven't asked me

[Loz]

Too simple, Hugo. And also wrong.

Is there a problem at the moment? Yes, but not as big as the council makes out - their own figures confirm that.

But will it create a bigger problem on the borders of the CPZ? Of course it will. If there is 1 or 2 commuters on each street parking inside the proposed new CPZ, then they will now be concentrated to the small number of streets on the border. So now a small number of streets are taking the hit.

And then, of course, you will also have a number of people on the inside border of the CPZ who will decide that parking on the next street and saving ?125 a year is an option. But that will also add to the 'edge concentration' problem - that problem that didn't exist before, but has been created by the CPZ.

Also, when the CPZ doesn't solve the problem in side the designated zone (which in streets like Elsie the council figures suggest it will not), then those people will still park on the next street, again pushing cars to the streets adjoining the zone. Again increasing the 'edge concentration' problem. A CPZ car can park anywhere. A non-CPZ car cannot. It sort of like saying 'I can park in your driveway when I need to, but you can't park in mine', which is more than just a little bit unfair.

All this is why people bordering the CPZ should have been consulted. They are stakeholders. They will be affected - quite adversely - by the proposals. And that is what the council has failed to do which, in my opinion, makes the consultation incomplete and invalid.

[first mate]

Huguenot,

You talk about irrational debate. The point is there has not been a debate.

Many residents are not convinced by the limited evidence available. They do not believe the 'solution' being offered will make a difference long-term. On the contrary, it is suggested it will have no impact in the long run, and it may even make things worse, only we'll all be paying for it.

You say the council are not deliberately trying to ignore the 'no' vote. Well, let us see. What we want is dissemination of the evidence, the reasons why the council think it will work, how it will be funded- in short, the case for. Then, at least we have an opportunity to talk about it and make a decision having some grasp of the facts.

I don't understand why you think that looking at CPZ on a street by street basis is the way to go? If the decision on imposing CPZ on the streets around the station were to have no impact on the streets nearby I could understand the logic of your stance. However, given that such an imposition will, almost certainly, simply displace the problem it is logical to consult those streets too. Given that displacement will continue street after street, it also makes consultation on a street by street basis illogical and disingenuous. The pattern is pretty clear and that should inform any consultation.

Nonetheless, if the case could be made that CPZ would ensure parking for residents that is better than the current situation or, at the very least, no worse, it might be worth consideration. However, there are compelling arguments that propose that the situation will be no better and likely worse, with a variety of additional inconveniences. And we will have to pay for the privilege.

I don't think there is any bullying going on. There is real fear at a time when purses are already stretched to the limit in many homes. I think there is also a fear that if we don't fight for a proper debate now we'll be kicking ourselves for not having done so, down the line, when the CPZ snowball effect is fully underway.

[gmackenney]

I take exception to being branded a 'bully' for expressing an opinion. None of my posts have in any way detracted from the right of those for the CPZ to express their opinion. In fact a large proportion of the no camp acknowledge that certain streets in the proposed zone have a parking issue and acknowledge that it's no fun having to park far away from one's house when laden with kids / shopping etc.

To the point about rational argument: the only rational assertion in the council's original consultation document is that there is a parking problem. What it didn't do was to explain how acute that problem was and in which streets. There was no clarity on how the proposed design was arrived at. There was a total absence of any 'downsides' other than an acknowledgement that some parking would be displaced. There was no data on how many spaces would be available under the proposed design. There was no information on permit holder take up. In short it was very light on the facts which may be used to drive a rational debate. This thread at the very least has made some of that information more transparent.

I live in a street adjacent to the zone. In saying "If you don't want to live in a CPZ that's entirely fair - but that's no justification to prevent other people who DO want to live in a CPZ from doing so." are you suggesting that my opinion should not be considered, when my street may take the parking displacement?

My prior post was intended to reflect the real concerns of those immediately adjacent to the zone. I don't believe it is irrational to suggest that

© a more acute problem will be created for streets immediately outside the zone: parking will be displaced into streets which are within easy walking distance of the local amenities. Particularly the Oglander Road triangle.

(d) a problem will be created in streets which presently don't have a problem: again due to displacement.

(e) that CPZ's spread: the Herne Hill CPZ is currently under consultation to grow on the Lambeth side.

(f) that the parking problem should not simply be moved onto other streets

(g) that those just outside the CPZ don't want to live in one and that the introduction of this CPZ increases the likelihood that they will come under that regime.

I will admit that 'fundamentally altering the character of the area' is highly subjective. I would however counter that 'I have a parking problem so something must be done' is an equally subjective view.

With respect to my comment about the 'whole area being swallowed by a CPZ', in my conversations with the parking officials at the Grove Vale library open day, they showed me a map of the current CPZ spread of Southwark. Currently we are bordered by a number of CPZs including the Herne Hill and Peckham Rye ones. My view is that it won't be long before the inevitable CPZ spread will cause the whole area to be covered. (It is only my opinion however!).

"The council are rightfully trying to prioritise the needs of local residents who should have a say in whether their own residential area gets turned into a parking lot by parasitic commuters and convenience shoppers." Presumably it is OK to prioritise the needs of these residents over those in the immediate vicinity? I'm not a 'parasitic commuter' or 'convenience shopper' since I can walk to the amenities in question and I suspect a large number of those who've expressed a no view are also in that category.

Finally, to your point "I don't believe that the council are deliberately trying to ignore the 'no' vote at all." I found out about the proposed CPZ on this thread. I was not 'consulted' in any way. The council have hung up a few notices on lamp posts inside the zone. Whilst the council are now acknowledging the no vote, they have attempted to put in the CPZ 'quietly' and with little transparency. Whilst James Barber and I disagree on this issue, he has at least taken the trouble to engage with local residents - attempts to get other councillors to engage have failed. My local councillors in 'The Lane' ward have completely ignored correspondence on this issue.

[James Barber]

The current projections are for London to expand by 1 million people by 2031 from 7.5 Million.

That's a lot of people to house.

http://www.london.gov.uk/shaping-london/london-plan/facts/

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23838968-population-of-london-set-to-hit-83m-high.do

I wish Mayoral and national politicians would ask people whether they want this or not and what the merits and demerits of this are. For example single persons council tax discount is a surprising incentive when we're so short of places for people to live already before the extra million people.

Attached is a 2008 report indicating what the local fall out of this London forecast population growth is for the Dulwich area. It shows a forecast growth from 33,000 to 39,000 residents by 2021 and then some decline.

So, unless average car ownership goes down we probably will see more residents living locally and those residents wanting to own and park cars. Hence my drive for more people to use the Car Club Cars.

At the same time car ownership costs in real terms are going down but public transport costs in real times are increasing rapidly. Again not helpful with a rapidly inreasing London and local population.

[StraferJack]

Sorry James, I'm not sure I understand the question

Are you saying that people collectively decide how many people live in London? Has that ever happened? Who do you stop? People procreating? People moving from home counties? People from further afield?

[James Barber]

Whether London's 7.5 million residents want an extra 1 million neighbours. Those extra 1 million will generate more issues and pressures in places such as East Dulwich.

[StraferJack]

so 7.5 million people get to decide if they "want" another million? Even tho a large number of that 7.5 million come from elsewhere?

Sorry James but that sounds daft

At what point did London plan ahead and decide on a number - "that's how many is optimal". never.. that's when. London has always been a magnet and that's why 7.5 million people live here now. Or should we have left it at 1 million at the start of the 1800s?

or what about when it had 8.5 million before - around WWII?

People don't just generate issues and pressures - they generate income, jobs, taxes, vibrancy, audiences, voters

[buddug]

James, this is almost as off-the-wall and crass as the times when, as soon as someone posts about a burglary they've just experienced,you immediately post statistics that crime is down in East Dulwich. Are you saying we must accept this proposal for the CPZ now because by 2031 there will be an extra million Londoners? No, actually, I don't want to know your answer.

Can we just ignore this little distraction and get back to the real world...