E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[Jeremy]

The development at the garden centre is common knowledge and has been discussed on this forum before.

Pushing it as "car free" makes no sense, as there is no way of enforcing it. In fact, I would consider it highly irresponsible of the council to approve a block of flats without any parking spaces.

[James Barber]

Hi Monica,

I have to admit guilt.

I removed both posters about the CPZ from the ED station notice boards and the one on North Cross Road. I didn't remove it from the Copleston Road notice board and was annoyed it had'nt remained until the end of the consultaton.

I try and keep these notice boards fresh and the consultation deadline date had gone by more than a week.

[gsirett]

[response to James Barber]

Maybe I am badly informed, but maybe not. It is no attempt to smear, I simply find it incredible that you are able to debate a subject in such detail and not mention such an important factor. A factor (whether you "voted for" or "spoke for") that you were clearly aware of

James - when we are being told that one of the main objectives of this scheme is to stop c.100 commuters using the area, I think it is absolutely relevant that another 20 homes are about to be built slap in the middle of the area, and that that development basically rests on a CPZ being put in (otherwise the "carfree" element of the development cannot be guarenteed)

It's great that we're getting a new library (although I notice in the planning documents, that Southwark reserved the right not to take up the library lease) but is it it down to you to decide whether this devleopment is relevant or not? - clearly you have decided that is not relevant and failed to communicate it

You seem very well informed of the precise legal position of the money that a property developer has been asked to contribute towards a CPZ consultation, but have failed to mention this once when telling people how limited funds were for a consultation.

And BTW, if we're talking about being misinformed, I have no idea who you're talking about with your comment "For you I understand if the CPZ proceeded you'd be inconvenienced by no longer being able to use a neighbours dropped kerb as effectively privatised public highway for your parking."

............. wrong person. I'm the person who's about to get all of the commuters (and quite a few residents who dont fancy buying a permit) parking down his street which is c.50m from the edge of the proposed scheme. Oh, and hasn't been contacted by the council and thinks that his response to the consultation won't carry very much weight.

[fredricketts]

Unfortunately this has been the governments policy for the last four years,and they wonder why areas are becoming overcrowded.probally to allow more and more people into areas,where they can control parking for their benefits,and to promote public transport.The normal public know that allowing flats and houses to be built with out taking into consideration parking facilities, is madness,but not the powers to be,they just create chaos, and we have to pay for it.Thats why we are in the state that we are in.To many chiefs and not enough Indians.

[easytiger]

The CPZ consultations is flawed, unlawful and unethical as sooooo many people have mentioned this to you James. At the Dulwich Community Council meeting TFL had spoken and CPZ was not on their annual programme as they had left it off ( what a joke). TFL said they are funding the CPZ and only to the roads as per the consultation pack because funds would not allow them to go further, another untruth. Now it comes to light that the developer is also funding the CPZ consultation which was NOT mentioned at the meeting which shows lack of transparency. And James Barber,you took down the posters, from the community notice boards, that were making people aware of the CPZ consultation around the station, and you were asked NOT to remove them, but you did. Another untruth from James as Copleston Rd did not even get a poster but he says it remained. You play a very unfair and sneaky game and by using your consistent online presence. People will not forget these matters and as i have said before LibDems will be losing votes.

The South Southwark Business Association submitted another circa 250 signatures with names and addresses on behalf of local residents opposing this CPZ around the station and have been accepted by Paul Gellard. The SSBA have around 2000 people voting against this and obtained in only 4 days as many local people were unaware of this consultation. Other local residents inside and outside the proposed CPZ have also been petitoning against this and have been submitting petitions. The council officers confirm a big response from inside and outside the proposed CPZ area.

You can write to [email protected]

copy in [email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[James Barber]

Hi Fred,

You are being outrageously unfair.

The Somerfield flats were decided before May 2006 when East Dulwich elected Lib Dem councillors ie. before my time.

If you have a problem with the planning decision talk to then Labour councillors who took council officer advice.

I believe the decision date was 2005.

Hi Peckhmboy,

I can assure you their are 5,200 homes in East Dulwich ward. I've knocked on them all repatedly and haverepatedly delivered our popular ;-) Lib Dem leaflets to them all.

The stats I have for car ownership come from council officers and public data.

[peckhamboy]

James - happy to update the figures. Based on 5200 homes in ED Ward, if only 500 cars belong to residents of the CPZ, that leaves 3429 cars for 4041 homes outside the zone, or an 84.8% ownership rate. That is still more than twice the borough average and, dare I say it, very unlikely. The only conclusion I can reach is that the figure of 500 you were given and, no doubt in good faith, passed on, appears to massively under-represent the truth. In fact, it appears to be a thoroughly arbitrary figure plucked from thin air and guesswork to justify a CPZ when it would appear that the council was in fact in possession of information that could be used to produce a more accurate and reliable figure, albeit one that may not make a CPZ look particularly attractive. But in my view the council's job is to make the solutions fit the facts not to make the facts fit the solutions.

[James Barber]

Hi easytiger,

The TfL chap who attended the Dulwich CommuitY counci lwas their to talk about TfL decided work.

The circa ?3M fudned TfL works in Southwark that happenevery year are decided by Southwark. So unsurprisingly he couldn't talk about tactical Southwark works TfL funded when he is their to talk TfL strategic stuff.

I understood the SSBA have submitted a petiton with 250 local businesses signatures not residents?

AND A DEVELOPER IS NOT FUNDING THIS CONSULTATION. If/when a section 106 agreement is signed they will eventually around 2014/15 give ?20,000 towards a CPZ consultation. I don't see any appetite for another such consultation within 3-4 years. Do you? So in all likeyhood that ?20,000 will sit in a council bank accounr for a number of years. The 72 Grove Vale S106 agreement had this problem and evenutally the ?50,000 was spent on the orignal Herne Hill CPZ consultation.

This is why I have repeatedly asked council planning officers to divert their ?20,000 requirement to something more useful lcoally.

Hi grisett,

Apologies but the suggestion I was effectively paid of made me mad.

As a local councillor I will always be asking lots of questions and seek meetings with planning officers to ensure the best possible result for East Dulwich. So of course I'm well informaed. I'd hope you'd be horrified if I wasn't.

20 extra 2 bed flats on top of ED station is not likely to generate much car ownership and part fo the scheme is free car club membership for all occupiers. It carries more than 1:1 cycle parking.

[James Barber]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> 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.

Hi Peckahmboy,

The data from that Transport Assessment is based on the 2001 census. The data provided to me by officers for the 1,146 homes in the proposed streets was from this summer and I was told 41% homes have access to a car - I believe council officers can ask DVLA for car ownership data that consultancies and inidividuals can't. But I've never tried to get such data so perhaps this assumption is wrong.

[garnwba]

oh dear... i think someone (few of you) owe Mr Barber an apology...

[gedwina]

Seems a little defamation is creeping in. A few people need to take a deep breath.

[monica]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Monica,

> I have to admit guilt.

> I removed both posters about the CPZ from the ED

> station notice boards and the one on North Cross

> Road. I didn't remove it from the Copleston Road

> notice board and was annoyed it had'nt remained

> until the end of the consultaton.

> I try and keep these notice boards fresh and the

> consultation deadline date had gone by more than a

> week.

Hi James

As far as I am aware, the consultation for the CPZ is ongoing, although the petitions were submitted, the posters were placed in the community notice board,to let the community know of the ongoing situation with the CPZ, because it is a fresh subject. And it shall remain fresh until further notice. Just for transparency, there will be new posters going in with someone else's contact details, and your contact details removed. You can understand why, your subjective manner towards wanting this to be implemented is apparent. We are both guardians of the community notice board, and I will ensure it contains fresh updated posters on the CPZ and other community news, that affects the community.

[Penguin68]

The data from that Transport Assessment is based on the 2001 census. The data provided to me by officers for the 1,146 homes in the proposed streets was from this summer and I was told 41% homes have access to a car

So, Mr Barber, your view, based on information received by you, is either that the CPZ area, as I (not Peckhamboy) said is unusually out of line with the rest of your ward, or that car ownership in ED has, uniquely for the UK, actually fallen between 2001 and 2011. I think such a fall, if national, might have registered on me.

In 2008 the Daily Telegraph noted

By David Millward, Transport Editor

6:28PM BST 28 Aug 2008

The statistics from the Department for Transport show that the number of British households without a car fell from 30 per cent in 1995-7 to only 25 per cent last year.

So the fall would need to have happend in the last 3 years.

[James Barber]

Hi monica,

The consultation ended 11 November.

I would hope local Southwark Council notice boards would carry current timely notices. Carrying a notice about a consultation that ended nearly two weeks ago is hardly timely.

Carrying a notice about the Dulwich Community Council - Tuesday 24 January for peoples diaries - where it will be discussed will be timely and as soon as I receive that notice I will be placing it on local noticeboards.

Hi Penguin68,

What sad national stats and direction they're going in.

Let me try and find out - just pinged an email trying to get this data for East Dulwich and South Camberwell wards.

[easytiger]

The SSBA have 3 petitions, one to ensure that the council inform the SSBA on all future consultations that affect the area and local businesses as we were not informed about this CPZ consultation despite you saying that you had informed us and you did NOT. Hence the rush of 4 days of petitioning when we found out thanks to JOOB who started this thread. Second petition on behalf of all of the local businesses and shops (apart from one business) within the CPZ and outside the CPZ area . The third petition is from local residents and shoppers. Others by different pockets of residents. All opposing the CPZ around the station.

The fact remains that the documents shows ?20k from the developer towards this CPZ consultation and you did not divulge this information at any point. Don't you think this is unfair, James? TFL did end up discussing the CPZ at the last meeting only to be told by the chair that no more questions would be taken as it was not on the agenda, and the decision will be taken in January. All very sneaky and unfair.

[gsirett]

garnwba Wrote:

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

> oh dear... i think someone (few of you) owe Mr

> Barber an apology...

I don't owe Cllr Barber an aplogy at all. I think I am quite corect in asking him why, after debating in great detail (and generally trying to justify) the introduction of a CPZ he thought it appropriate not to mention ONCE a property development that has a material impact on the data presented and could [by some people] be seen as a contributing factor towards the introduction of a CPZ.

[garnwba]

gsirett - why is is James's responsibility to flag up to you a property development that has been in the public domain for ages and has also been discussed on this very forum?

Also now that we have established that the development company are a) not funding the CPZ and b) most probably be against a CPZ

Perhaps you could explain how you feel it would have a material impact on the data presented when it hasn't been built yet and the residents will not be entitled to apply for CPZ permits

Answer.. it doesn't

Unless of course you think the data should take into consideration any potential changes to residential property in the ED are over say the next 25 years which might have an impact?

It doesn't

[peterstorm1985]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> The data provided to me by

> officers for the 1,146 homes in the proposed

> streets was from this summer and I was told 41%

> homes have access to a car -

The trouble with statistics of any kind is that they are often only valid for the specific question asked. Presumably, the question here was "Does someone in your home have a car?", to which the answer is either yes or no.

What it doesn't answer is how many cars there are in each home. Even if someone has access to five cars it would still only register one 'yes' response.

So '41% of homes have access to cars' could be true even if the car/home ratio is greater than 100%.

[James Barber]

grisett,

You've effectively suggested I was corrupt. You say you owe me no apology. Does that mean you think I am corrupt?

If you do then you should report me to Southwark Council's monitoring officer [email protected].

If you don't think I'm corrupt you should say so publicly because at the moment you've made a public allegation which could affect my employment now and into the future.

[gsirett]

garnwba Wrote:

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

> gsirett - why is is James's responsibility to flag

> up to you a property development that has been in

> the public domain for ages and has also been

> discussed on this very forum?

I am not suggesting that is his responsibility. I am suggesting that when Cllr Barber has been involved in such detailed debate inlcuding figures (down to the nearest car) that help justify this CPZ, it seems very strange that not once he thought to mention this planned development.

> Also now that we have established that the

> development company are a) not funding the CPZ and

not funding the CPZ......alright, lets get very picky here. They have "commited to a 20k contribution". We've since been told that isn't being used to fund this CPZ consultation directly, but may be used to fund others in the future. So, I guess another development from a few years back is being used to fund this one ?

Again - I think people should know this. I think a councillor debating it in such detail should have mentioned this especially seeing that we've been told that consultation funds are limited

> b) most probably be against a CPZ

Do you honestly think that a property developer would build a free library or pay for a CPZ consultation out of the kindness of their hearts? Of course not, they do it to make their development pallatable to the planners. Another part of making it palattable is to call it a "car free" development, so it meets environmental/traffic requirments. And the only way to make it "car free" is to have a CPZ which can control the parking.

Yes, I'm sure the devleoper would rather NOT have a CPZ, like they would rather NOT build a free library

> Perhaps you could explain how you feel it would

> have a material impact on the data presented when

> it hasn't been built yet and the residents will

> not be entitled to apply for CPZ permits

>

> Answer.. it doesn't

It absolutly does. We have been presented a lot of data that takes into account the number of homes in the area

> Unless of course you think the data should take

> into consideration any potential changes to

> residential property in the ED are over say the

> next 25 years which might have an impact?

Cllr Barber has told us quite a few times that furutre considerations ARE being taken into account (such as increased capacity at London Bridge station)

[Penguin68]

You cannot hope to bribe or twist,

thank God! the British journalist.

But, seeing what the man will do

unbribed, there's no occasion to.

- Humbert Wolfe

Perhaps (some) councillors as well? - no names, no packdrill

[James Barber]

Hi grisett,

The funding is from TfL for the CPX consultation.

If I had talked about the 20 flats replacing the garden centre in the context of this CPZ consultation - you would accuse me of putting extra pressure on the residents of lcoal street to vote for controlled parking.

I have suggested to people that they consider future developments. I apologise if anyone feel misled on this thread that I didn't mention these 20 new flats which are likely to be completed 2014/15 or that they may well add extra parknig pressure near the station. I have mentioned this development many times on my blogs and in tweets and on this forum. It never occurred to me people would consider 20 new flats in several year times materials compared to the 1,146 homes in the proposeds streets. I'm not perfect BUT I AM CERTAINTLY NOT CORRUPT AS YOU@VE SUGGESTED.

[gsirett]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> grisett,

> You've effectively suggested I was corrupt. You

> say you owe me no apology. Does that mean you

> think I am corrupt?

> If you do then you should report me to Southwark

> Council's monitoring officer

> [email protected].

> If you don't think I'm corrupt you should say so

> publicly because at the moment you've made a

> public allegation which could affect my employment

> now and into the future.

James, I'm not minded to comment on whether you're corrupt, but I never say never

I think if you anwwered the quesiton below, it would put a lot of peoples minds to rest

I think I am quite corect in asking him why, after debating in great detail (and generally trying to justify) the introduction of a CPZ he thought it appropriate not to mention ONCE a property development that has a material impact on the data presented and could [by some people] be seen as a contributing factor towards the introduction of a CPZ.

[first mate]

I do hope local journos are being kept in the loop about all of this.

[Otto]

The nice thing in the documents concerning the development is the provision of lots of extra secure bicycle parking for non-residents. That is a GOOD thing!