E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[James Barber]

Hi grisett,

My understanding is the report will have this data as an appendix.

I asked for this so that the raw data is made widely available.

I wasn't aware it would overlap your FOI but it should have the same result.

I've also asked that the report if at all possible be released before Xmas. Normally it would be released 7 days before the community council meeting on 10/1 but hopefully it can be released nearly a fortnight earlier.

Overall I think this serves the community better getting a report out two weeks earleir and making the raw data available to everyone.

[gsirett]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi grisett,

> My understanding is the report will have this data

> as an appendix.

> I asked for this so that the raw data is made

> widely available.

> I wasn't aware it would overlap your FOI but it

> should have the same result.

> I've also asked that the report if at all possible

> be released before Xmas. Normally it would be

> released 7 days before the community council

> meeting on 10/1 but hopefully it can be released

> nearly a fortnight earlier.

>

> Overall I think this serves the community better

> getting a report out two weeks earleir and making

> the raw data available to everyone.

James, if what you say comes true then it should give the same result, so thanks for requesting it.

However, the response does not say that and nothing would suprise me on this subject.....of course Southwark aren't obliged to include the raw data, whether you've asked for it or not.

Lets wait and see then

[eddie]

I am not surprised that Southwark Council refuse to release the raw data. In a previous ?consultation? on another matter, the council admitted that they had ignored any returned forms that did not have all the data they wanted, even though their own consultation forms did not declare that would be the case.

It is heartening to see that Westminster Council have had to abandon plans to introduce late night and weekend parking charges after a High Court Judge ruled against them. Westminster's decision came after the judge decided that there were grounds for a judicial review of the way the council reached its decision. Giving his permission for a full judicial review of the charges, the judge said "there is a real risk of substantial damage to businesses and churches if it goes ahead" adding that the current consultation process was ?arguably far too limited?

Southwark Council officers and councillors should take notice of that action.

[gsirett]

And, remember, there is no set objective/formula that southwrk use to analyse CPZ consultation data.

So you'd expect souhwark to want to be as transparent as possible or THEY'RE going to have to face a judicial review.

The media would love that one

Local democracy at it's best !!!

[fredricketts]

It's about time all MPs and councilors are made to be accountable

To the electors, I have had many. Dealings with Southwark council and have never found them to be above board,

They always have their own agendas.And they don not care what residents want,just look at what is happening in Westminster, the majority of residents don't want CPZ, yet they are not dropping it.where is the democracy,there is none. I have written to Tessa Jowell and awaiting her reply.

[henryb]

"the majority of residents don't want CPZ,"

What? On the streets where it is proposed? You sure? Can you provide the data you based that claim on?

[gsirett]

Post removed

[gsirett]

henryb Wrote:

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

> "the majority of residents don't want CPZ,"

>

> What? On the streets where it is proposed? You

> sure? Can you provide the data you based that

> claim on?

He probably based it on the 3000 local people who signed a petition against this flawed scheme in a 4 day period.

I'm sure he'd have liked to base it on the consultation data, only southwark have refused to share that.

Like many people, he's probably upset at the badly designed, revenue raising, sledgehammer being used to crack a nut

[henryb]

And how many of those lived on streets in the proposed CPZ?

[gsirett]

Probably not many. But plenty lived on streets who are about to have a parking problem pushed on to them, plenty own businesses that are going to be affected, plenty feel that this scheme won't deliver it's objectives, plenty know what it's like to live under a CPZ regime. And then quite a few who feel that they haven't been consulted with by southwark...... Who seem intent on only listening to those people inside the proposed zone

That's all

[Loz]

henryb,

Why should it matter if the people expressing an opinion live in the streets covered by the CPZ versus nearby or adjoining streets?

The CPZ is going to have far reaching implications to a much wider area. 'Stakeholders' are defined as anyone significantly affected. The stakeholders in the proposed CPZ are not just those that live in the defined streets.

[James Barber]

I'm expecting the officers report to be published next week and incolude the raw data as an appendice.

Can everyone wait until then before saying how rubbish councillors are or officers.

Equally saying the council wont share the raw data, when I've been assured and repeated that assurance here that it will be in the appendix, is unhelpful.

[henryb]

> Why should it matter if the people expressing an

> opinion live in the streets covered by the CPZ

> versus nearby or adjoining streets?

Because CPZ is primarily to relieve parking problems on the streets covered - caused by people not living there parking there. They are the ones who will have to pay and get permits and hopefully be able to park near their houses.

It seems people are very quick to criticize the council for with-holding information are themselves very quick to ignore facts that don?t suit their argument.

[Loz]

Hmm henryb, I notice you left out of your quote of my post the definition of a stakeholder... and then accused me of "ignoring facts that don?t suit [my] argument." Cute.

And then you throw in an accusation that I was "very quick to criticize the council for with-holding information." That is downright dishonest. Where have I done that?

But, back to the point at hand: if I choose to fix the problem that my bin is overflowing by dumping it all in your front garden, then you should have no say in the matter? That is what, in effect, you are arguing.

[henryb]

Loz Wrote:

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

> Hmm henryb, I notice you left out of your quote of

> my post the definition of a stakeholder... and

> then accused me of "ignoring facts that don?t suit

> argument." Cute.

You asked a question I answered it. Your post is there for everyone to see.

Whether parking on a street should have resident only restrictions should primarily be up to the people who live on that street. Not the people who use that street for free parking or people who want other people to suffer so they don?t have to. This is not an unusual view and one that is normally applied when deciding CPZs

> And then you throw in an accusation that I was

> "very quick to criticize the council for

> with-holding information." That is downright

> dishonest. Where have I done that?

Where did I say you said that? I made no such accusation about you. Why didn?t you copy the entire sentence?

> But, back to the point at hand: if I choose to fix

> the problem that my bin is overflowing by dumping

> it all in your front garden, then you should have

> no say in the matter? That is what, in effect,

> you are arguing.

That is not an equivalent argument at all. An equivalent argument would be saying it is wrong for people on neighbouring streets to try stopping people putting in measures prevent fly tipping on their streets because the fly tippers will just move on to neighbouring streets.

[Loz]

henryb Wrote:

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

> Loz Wrote:

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

> > And then you throw in an accusation that I was

> > "very quick to criticize the council for

> > with-holding information." That is downright

> > dishonest. Where have I done that?

>

> Where did I say you said that? I made no such

> accusation about you. Why didn?t you copy the

> entire sentence?

Happy to: in a post that directly responded to mine, you wrote: "It seems people are very quick to criticize the council for with-holding information are themselves very quick to ignore facts that don?t suit their argument."

Which, as it is plain to see, I didn't.

> > But, back to the point at hand: if I choose to fix

> > the problem that my bin is overflowing by dumping

> > it all in your front garden, then you should have

> > no say in the matter? That is what, in effect,

> > you are arguing.

>

> That is not an equivalent argument at all. An

> equivalent argument would be saying it is wrong

> for people on neighbouring streets to try stopping

> people putting in measures prevent fly tipping on

> their streets because the fly tippers will just

> move on to neighbouring streets.

No, that's wrong. Putting in a CPZ is equivalent to painting your own private parking space outside your home, then parking your wife's car outside mine. The issue with CPZ is that it fences off x number of spaces - but unfortunately for a group of people owning 2x cars. And guess where those extra cars are going to go?

It's called having your cake and eating it too.

It's why all the people in the area should be consulted. *All* stakeholders. It is the only fair way of doing a consultation.

[henryb]

> Happy to: in a post that directly responded to

> mine, you wrote: "It seems people are very quick

> to criticize the council for with-holding

> information are themselves very quick to ignore

> facts that don?t suit their argument."

The "people" I was referring to were the people who were doing that on this thread. Not you. If I had meant you I would have said "you". I apologize for any confusion.

> No, that's wrong. Putting in a CPZ is equivalent

> to painting your own private parking space outside

> your home, then parking your wife's car outside

> mine. The issue with CPZ is that it fences off x

> number of spaces - but unfortunately for a group

> of people owning 2x cars. And guess where those

> extra cars are going to go?

>

No it is not like like that at all. It is letting people who live on a street with parking problems decide whether there should be restrictions for non residence. That seems a perfectly reasonable policy and I am glad this council and indeed most in London use that as the primary criteria.

You can make up as many fantasy situations as you like that, in your mind, are similar in some way or another but that doesn't change anything. It is up to the people living on the street - not the non residence who use it for free parking. I think that is good thing. If you don't - you don't and we disagree.

[gsirett]

I?ve had early sight of the Draft Consultation Report from Southwark. It is due to be published on Friday and available from the Southwark website.

It streteches to 44 pages so here?s the very quick summary:

In answer to the key question ?Do you agree with the introduction of a CPZ in your street??........

overall

Yes= 24% (95)

No = 70% (279)

Responses from within the CPZ boundary

Yes= 35% (84)

No=59% (143)

Responses from outside the CPZ boundary:

Yes=7% (11)

No=88% (136)

Of the 22 Roads consulted, only 2 were in favour (Derwent and Tintagel)

Other recorded communication, not official consultation responses: out of 53 received, 40 were against a CPZ, 8 supported.

Petitions

There were 9 petitions handed in. A total of 1826 signatures (98%) recorded against the CPZ, 29 (2%) in favour

Recommendations

In conclusion, the report gives a choice of 5 recommendations to be discussed at the 2 x Community Councils:

1. No CPZ

2. No CPZ, but make minor changes to roads,lines, removing unused bays, etc to make everybodys life easier

3. Experimental one hour CPZ in Derwent Grove only

4. Experimental one hour CPZ in Derwent, Elsie, Jarvis, Melbourn, Oxonian,Tintagel, Zenoria

5. Experimental one hour CPZ in Derwent, Elsie, Tintagel

My opinion

The people have been consulted and the people have firmly told Southwark Council that they do not want a CPZ.

But Southwark won?t give up. Despite the overwhelming results, they are still suggesting the option of introducing a CPZ (in a diluted format). Why can?t they just conclude that people don?t want it and leave it there?

Of the 5 recommendations, none of these were put forward as possibilities in the consultation (except the concept of not having one). Where have they suddenly come from? What really stinks is that it hasn?t once been mentioned that some simple changes to Road layout,bays,etc (without a CPZ) could be made to improve the parking situation. Why weren?t we given that as an option DURING the consultation?

Options 3,4, and 5 I read as: ?we?ve just about managed to get some support on a couple of these roads, lets try to get a CPZ in there only?. Again, nobody has been consulted on this. The likely knock on effect would be even worse than the initial proposal, resulting in the forced enlargement of the zone at some point. The thin end of a wedge. This, more than anything, shows how desperate Southwark are to push this through. Are they SEROIUSLY suggesting a a one road CPZ ??

So, despite saying a firm ?no?, there is still the posisiblity of a CPZ still going ahead. The opinion of the Camberwell and Dulwich Community councils carries much weight so it is essential that people attend these meetings to show that they are not prepared to have Southwark override this ovehwhemling opinion.

You can still have your say:

7pm 24 January Dulwich Community Council will be held at St Barnabas Church 40 Calton Avenue SE21 7DG and the chair person has agreed to largely hand over - as much as he can - the meeting to discussing the CPZ.

7pm 10 January Camberwell Community Council is proposed to be held at Jessie Duffett Hall, 92 - 94 Wyndham Road, London SE5 0UB.

North and east of Grove Vale is covered by CCC, south of Grove Vale by DCC.

[Penguin68]

People voted for or against a specific proposal regarding CPZ scope - the set of roads in the map. It is astounding (no, of course it isn't) that propsosal 2 was never tabled. Proposals 3-5 have NEVER been consulted on, so any action taken on those would have to be clearly stated was based on NO CONSULTATION WHAT SO EVER (excuse screams, but that's what it feels like).

The logic of the road by road proposals would be that, if you had voted for a CPZ, wherever you lived, one could be put just outside your own house.

I don't supposed I should be surprised by the Stalinist approach to democracy - but I am.

[Peckhampam]

I actually read that draft report as a resounding win for democracy! They asked.....we told them......and they are going with it. I consider a comment about Stalinist approach to democracy as ridiculous!

[Penguin68]

Peckhampam

The first 2 options that they are proposing, as reported by gsirett are exactly what you suggest - the remaining 3 (any of which could, on the day, be their choice) all impose a CPZ (even a limited one) and for 2 on streets (1 - option 5 and in option 4's case 5) who clearly voted against. In what way is this democratic? - in what way, if the council makes their decision, is this not (millions of deaths apart) not Stalinist in its approach to the people's wishes?

Additionally the votes were not cast for any of the schemes listed under options 3-5. How can you consider it a win for democracy when the proposal (for an ED CPZ) was voted down and 3 out of 5 proposals are to introduce a CPZ. We all know that CPZ creep is an immensely common occurance, this is about wedging in a CPZ anyway.

It will be a resounding win for democracy only when option 1 (or, at a pinch Option 2) are the choice. 60% of the options being considered by the council are wholly undemocratic.

[James Barber]

The consultation was of individual streets and whether they wanted to have some degree of controlled parking or not and be part of a scheme or not. The questions specifically asked how residents would feel if a neighbouring street had controlled parking and whether that would change their view.

So all of the proposed options have been consulted upon.

I'm looking forward to tomorrow when the report is published and everyone can read it. If no one else does I'll be, as promised previously, posting a link to it.

I think it is very unfortunate that the embargoed report has been quoted 14hours earlier than its public release date. This risks making council officers and information more closely guarded in the future to ensure it is released to everyone at the same time.

[fredricketts]

The only option we want in Ashbourne Grove is option 1 No CPZ, it?s just a money maker for Councils, and they know it, that?s why they choose to ignore the people.

They keep on about people getting involved with what goes on in their community, and when you do, they ignore, what the people want, and just bulldoze, their own agendas through, it?s about time they listened to the people that elect them to carry out the public wishes, that?s what I thought we elected them for.

Why would the developer of the Nursery at East Dulwich Station want to give the residents 3 years car club membership, and a new library, and this is well in advance of the CPZ coming out.? Just to push through their plans for over populating the area, and making parking a lot worse than what it is already. And to make money to waste on stupid road humps and bus islands to slow down the motorist and force people on to the useless over priced public transport. And to make residents lives a misery.

[tomk]

James Barber Wrote:

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

>

> I think it is very unfortunate that the embargoed

> report has been quoted 14hours earlier than its

> public release date. This risks making council

> officers and information more closely guarded in

> the future to ensure it is released to everyone at

> the same time.

Which of course it should have been.

[ktbg]

I think the online consultation form included more streets than were leafleted. I'm in a surrounding street and was able to use the online form. And I got a letter in reply from Veronica Ward and Peter John, which includes the line:

"Please be assured that if the objections outweigh support then the CPZ will not happen."