E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[gsirett]

Unbelievable

The good people of Queens Road are currently being consulted on a CPZ.

They are in a FIRST STAGE CONSULTATION (see definition below) which ?aims to establish whether or not there is support for a CPZ.?

Only when that is complete, do they go to a 2nd stage, looking at the detailed design, hours, etc

This seems like a sensible, pragmatic way of doing it: lets see if its wanted before we spend 1000?s on detailed design consultation.Easpecially seeing money is so tight for communication

SO WHY ON EARTH IS EAST DULWICH HAVING A COMBINED 1ST & 2ND STAGE CONSULTATION ?

We?ve constantly been told by the councillors that money is an issue: then why not do the simple (and cheap ?) 1st stage, well.,err?. first.

"We usually ask a large area so that everyone is aware of the consultation. " - NOT ON MY PATCH YOU AINT

Unless, it couldn?t be a deliberate attempt to drive the scheme through could it, by giving people the impression that it is a fait accompli?

From

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2890/queens_road-first_stage_consultation_document

What is the difference between the first and second stage consultation?

First Stage Consultation

This initial consultation aims to establish whether or not there is support

for a CPZ. We usually ask a large area so that everyone is aware of the

consultation. Based upon the results, the council will decide whether a

CPZ should be implemented in some, all or none of the streets. Before the

CPZ is introduced a second stage consultation will be carried out.

Second Stage Consultation

The second stage consultation aims to understand how you think the

layout (type and position) of parking bays should be arranged. The results

of your comments are analysed and reported before the proposals are

advertised and implemented.

[pgnf]

Thankyou & Well Said bugsbgone! That hugenot especially gets on my t***!

I looked around the streets between sainsbury & the station , around abbotswood road - this is next to station, without parking control & actually without many any cars at-all! Why on earth would these imaginary commuters squeeze into melbourn & derwent when the abbotswood rd area is Empty????!!!!

I suggested this to that Cllr barber bloke & he replied 'bcs they(the commuters) dont know about it'!

[garnwba]

pgnf - so what's your point?

[StraferJack]

why would anyone dismiss that answer - I'd say it's pretty accurate if it applied to people driving from more than a mile or two away. Hell, even people locally will choose the path of least resistance, hence Melbourne grove > Abbostwood Rd for them

[blackadder]

from Queens Road Consultation

Your views count

'We are aware that parking difficulty may have

increased in your area due to displacement from

nearby B CPZ'

And there the merry-go round continues.

I'm sure the author of that report and the

faceless bureaucrats,

understood the obvious irony of that

statement, and had a good smug chuckle

to themselves.

[Huguenot]

Ha ha, pgnf, I suspect that anyone who disagrees with you 'gets on your t**s' ;-)

I should point out that if as you say there are plenty of spaces for cars within the proposed CPZ, then there will be no edge concentration, no zone creep and no impact on local traders.

So you will be overjoyed to discover that you have absolutely nothing to complain about?

In that case you will no doubt agree with many equable residents that it's only fair that the street residents should be free to make up their own minds?

[Carrie]

Of course there will be edge concentration - the roads surrounding the CPZ will have additional parking pressure put on them by those living within the CPZ who do not want to pay ?125 a year when they can park a short walk away for free!

[Huguenot]

Except the evidence from HH is that it's not significant enough to prompt an extension of the zone...

[first mate]

More than likely due to much greater available off-street parking, and yet HH residents are still objecting to it.

[monica]

I was walking past our community notice board this morning on Northcross Rd, and I noticed the posters we had put in Re the CPZ were gone. So I asked myself a little question, did I, in my sleep go down and take the posters down. No, I cant have, because its a community notice board, notifying the good folks of Dulwich what is happening. The community notice board is there for a reason. There are 2 key holders for the notice board, I am one, other key holder if you are reading this, can you please put the notices back up. Otherwise the good folks of ED will assume you really are pulling out all the stops to make sure this CPZ goes through. Some may think nobody reads the notice board, but believe me, people do. There are plenty more posters, and I will put them back in.

:)-D

[Zak]

Does anyone know anything about the ?20,000 contribution to the CPZ consultation from the developer involved in redeveloping the Garden Centre into 21 flats?

It appears in the Planning Report to Southwark ( Application 11-AP-0024 re 18-22 Grove Vale SE22 8EF ) which was approved on 19th July 20011.

Paragraph 75 of the report states that ? the developer has agreed to contribute towards a review of the need for a CPZ , including consultation of existing residents and businesses. The contribution is limited to ?20,000?

Two local councillors voted in favour of the application, one of whom was James Barber

I?ve seen no reference to this so far and I find it very strange that a developer should be offering to pay for this sort of activity. What?s been going on?

Furthermore - wait for it ? this development of 21 flats ( 5x1 bed, 11x2 bed, 4x3 bed) is being presented as a ?car free development? (para 75 again) ?The applicant assumes that in view of the proximity to the East Dulwich train station and bus stops residents will be less likely to want to own a vehicle? Para 75 again - Really? How likely is that and how could it be enforced!

So what role has this planning application played in fuelling the CPZ consultation? .

Can anyone explain?

[Chener Books]

Well identified, Zak.

The "Transport Assessment" document is here in two parts:

http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/DocsOnline/Documents/139597_1.pdf

http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/DocsOnline/Documents/139598_1.pdf

Paragraphs 4.3.2 and 4.3.9 are interesting.

Residents of Melbourne Grove (North) and Derwent Grove may wish to read this carefully.

John K

[Otto]

Bombshell.

[first mate]

I'm sure James Barber will tell us all about this and what the financial relationship between the developer and the council is. But, if true, it all sounds a bit stinky.

[gsirett]

That explains Sooooooo much

By god, and to think that barber and co had been economical with the truth so far, this is simply unbelievable

There has been a 3 week debate on this forum about this flawed CPZ, during which time barber & co have shamelessly promoted the scheme, whilst maintaining a veil of "I want whats best for the people"

NOT ONCE does he mention a development that that can only go ahead ( on it's car free promise) if a CPZ is introduced ( or how else could "car free" be enforced

I really am lost for words

[jamessmith2099]

I am very much pleased with the contents you have mentioned. I enjoyed every little bit part of it. It contains truly information. I want to thank you for this informative read; I really appreciate sharing this great.

[gsirett]

Does anyone know anything about the ?20,000 contribution to the CPZ consultation from the developer involved in redeveloping the Garden Centre into 21 flats?

It appears in the Planning Report to Southwark ( Application 11-AP-0024 re 18-22 Grove Vale SE22 8EF ) which was approved on 19th July 20011.

Paragraph 75 of the report states that ? the developer has agreed to contribute towards a review of the need for a CPZ , including consultation of existing residents and businesses. The contribution is limited to ?20,000?

Two local councillors voted in favour of the application, one of whom was James Barber

I?ve seen no reference to this so far and I find it very strange that a developer should be offering to pay for this sort of activity. What?s been going on?

Furthermore - wait for it ? this development of 21 flats ( 5x1 bed, 11x2 bed, 4x3 bed) is being presented as a ?car free development? (para 75 again) ?The applicant assumes that in view of the proximity to the East Dulwich train station and bus stops residents will be less likely to want to own a vehicle? Para 75 again - Really? How likely is that and how could it be enforced!

So what role has this planning application played in fuelling the CPZ consultation? .

Can anyone explain?

[peckhamboy]

Para 3.3.3 is also interesting. During the CPZ debate we were repeatedly fed lines about car ownership in the area, specifically related to the Southwark average of 40%. Yet the council's own figures in this document state that for East Dulwich Ward specifically, 46.4% own one car, 12.2% own two cars and 1.6% own 3 or more cars. That is significantly higher than the borough average and, based on 1159 residential properties in the proposed zone, equates to 873 cars fighting for 507 places. Or, in other words, at least 367 cars pushed onto streets outside the zone even if they have bought a permit.

Those of you who have asked for a CPZ - do you think it would have been helpful to see these figures in the context of the consultation? Would your views have been different if you had seen them?

James Barber - did you forget you had seen thse figures when you were claiming there were fewer than 500 cars owned by residents within the zone?

[Penguin68]

It is true that the averages for ED ward would suggest that 'speaking with forked tongues' would be a viable epithet here, but the polled part of ED ward (such a strange and truncated area) might still have lower car ownership than the ED average - the fact is that nobody, including Mr Barber, knows - and the ONLY information which Mr Barber had of any accuracy, but which he chose not to share, shows that this part of the ward would have to be, on average, unusually car free for his arguments to hold any water at all.

His previous discussion about the plans for the Garden Centre development, and his participation in the relevant decision, make it clear that, at the very least, he was compartmentalising issues to an extraordinary extent not to see, admit or discuss the linkages here.

When it comes to the next opportunity to exercise a democratic vote which is not obfuscated or gerrymandered no doubt some of us will remember.

[gsirett]

James

The role of property developers in the proposed Controlled Parking Zone

I have been asked to send this letter to you by a number of local residents. I am sending this as an open letter as I feel that the information that has come to light today will quickly spread as rumour if not and that you should answer in a public forum

Over the past few weeks there has been a heated debate on the East Dulwich Forum about a proposed Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) at East Dulwich Station.

Many people, myself included, have felt that you have been promoting this scheme, that you seem to have been attempting to drive the scheme through and not holding a balanced view of the needs & concerns of many local stakeholders. I have felt that this is not appropriate behaviour for a local councillor. Time and time again you have told us that this scheme is required, there is a significant parking problem and that it is being consulted on in response to ?substantial demand from local residents? (which turns out to be c.40 people in 3 years)

There has been much anger that residents in the surrounding area were not consulted and only found out about this through word of mouth. Despite this, over 1500 local residents & businesses signed petitions against the scheme in a 4 day period. When asked to extend the consultation by a couple of weeks, to allow people to be informed and public feeling to be properly judged the council refused.

Many people like me, are wondering why a councillor, who always seems to have done a great job of engaging with the local community, seems so intent on ignoring local feeling and promoting this scheme.

Today I learnt some most disturbing information:

1. It appears that the East Dulwich CPZ consultation has been funded by a property developer to the tune of ?20,000

2. It appears that said property developer is looking to build 20 flats on the site of East Dulwich Garden centre

http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeNeighbours&TheSystemkey=9538657

3. It appears that the development will provide only 2 parking spaces (for disabled people) for the entire 20 flats, so is being promoted as a ?car free? development

4. Two local councillors voted in favour of the application, one of whom was you, James Barber

On behalf of my fellow residents (and I?m sure many other people who voted for you) , may I ask that you please clarify the following:

1. Can you please explain whilst during 2-3 weeks of debate on the CPZ ( a debate to which you were a major contributor) you failed to mention, once, that this property development was planned. Not once did you mention it, even during some of your very detailed arguments in favour of the scheme.

2. During the same period, you failed to mention that the consultation was being funded by a property developer (or part funded?).

3. Why, during the same period, you maintained that the consultation was being performed in response to requests by residents, not mentioning that the development was also driving it?

4. Why the consultation documents presented to the local community did not mention this development or it?s likely impact on the local area ? the fact that it could only really proceed if a CPZ went in. The documents had VERY detailed analysis of car usage & parking patterns but failed to mention that 20 homes were being built with no parking.

5. A shortage of money has been repeatedly given as the reason for not consulting a wider area (due to council cuts) but actually you had access to private finance through this developer. Why was the developer not asked to fund a wider consultation?

As well as these questions, I strongly suggest that you take the opportunity to show that you have no relationship with the property developer. As I have said many times, I am not a conspiracy theorist, but many are (and quite a few of the ?conspiracies? in relation to this proposed CPZ seem to have been true) .

[fredricketts]

The Lib dem Councillors did exactly the same to the flats above Somerfield?s three years ago. , planning permission for twelve flats with no where to park their cars, and no were to put their rubbish. It?s done deliberately, so CPZ can be brought in. and they deliberately kept the fact that it was a hostel with sex offenders in it, they broke their own planning laws for about three years after and probably still breaking it with no where to put their rubbish and cars, so Ashbourne Grove residents have been suffering ever since. With big businesses comes corruption, like Councils who seem to get involved in everything except running the bourgh properly. Car clubs that belong to private firms allowed to have public parking spaces everywhere, when they know that parking places are at a premium, and they are not helping by allowing flats and houses to be built without consideration as to where they will be parking their cars, and whats more they don?t care about were cars are parked, as they will have their CPZ and earning more money to squander on the humps in Melbourne Grove and the top of Rye Lane. Are buses not under the same law as motorists? Why take up the humps so the buses can go down the road, and then put the humps back after they have been re routed again. Planning permission for the flats above Somerfield?s and permission to build on their car par was given at twelve o?clock at night, the very last application of the night and no one was informed by the Council. ONE LAW FOR US ANOTHER FOR THEM. We elect them to do what is right for the Community, not what is right for them.

[peckhamboy]

According to this there are 4697 dwellings in ED Ward. Simple maths shows that this means there are 3550 cars in ED ward so, for James' claims to be correct, that would mean the rest of ED Ward (outside the CPZ) has 3050 cars for 3520 dwellings, or an 86% car ownership rate - double the borough average. If that is true, I would suggest he is looking in the wrong part of the ward for parking problems.

If it's not true, then I think residents of the proposed zone should be asking some pretty searching questions of their councillors.

[trizza]

How strange. I thought the Council always maintained that the consultation was paid for by funds for TFL.

Of course, if the CPZ does not go through then what's the score with the dulwich garden centre development?

I am aware of other developments in Southwark (particulary SE1) where there is a provision in the planning and leases etc. that prevent residents of those developments for applying for permits to park their cars in the CPZ around their development. Essentially, by buying a flat you agree you can't have a car and park it in the CPZ.

Presumably, if the CPZ does not go through and the Dulwich Garden Centre development has these restrictions against cars (am not sure of this) then this couldn't be enforced (you can't stop someone owning a car - just parking it in the CPZ). Some of the car haters at the Council wouldn't like that - fancy approving new flats where residents are allowed to own cars...

It adds an interesting dimension to the debate.

[Penguin68]

It may be worthwhile thinking through this one strategically.

1. The Garden Centre developers don't want a CPZ (why would they? it would reduce the attractivenes of their development - they have been forced by an anti-car council to propose building flats without parking, if there is close uncontrolled parking then their flats will be more attractive, if a CPZ is introduced their flats won't be allowed to apply for permits, so making sale etc. less attractive.

2. Mr Barber could have used the threat of a potential 25+ additional residents cars coming into the area as a further threat to anti-CPZ-ers - but chose not to or didn't think this one through.

3. The Garden Centre developers have been forced to pay money towards a consultation which wasn't used but which will be 'banked' - with that money the consultation could have been extended to adjacent streets and the weird topology of the CPZ made more sensible.

All very strange

[fredricketts]

Very strange indeed,a lot of under handedness going on, nothing new with Southwark Council,all there priorities wrong.