E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[gm99]

@Gsirett

In my humble opinion you should have respected the embargo and waited for formal publication, not least so that everyone can judge the full report on its merits and see the detailed analysis of responses and the Council's justifications for their proposals before the mud-slinging starts. As it stands, you have privileged yourself. (No, I don't work for the council)

That said...

@James Barber

"...all of the proposed options have been consulted upon"

Are you sure? I thought the consultation document asked respondents to choose between two-hour and all-day controls, not one hour 'experiments', and did not mention improving the road layout as a stand-alone option to alleviate parking pressure.

It looks to me at least like Southwark are making this up as they go along, and whatever your position with respect to the merits or otherwise of CPZs that cannot be satisfactory.

[Nicholas Spears]

Those concerned about learning something earlier than the council wants them to can relax...you can now read the full CPZ consultation document without breaking the embargo, as it's been officially published online.

Frankly, the leaked summary was all I needed. The full report is full of flam that tries to conceal the clear fact that a majority of those surveyed were against it.

But here it is:

http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=25008&ISATT=1&bcsi_scan_6BDE16B5925DEBDF=bsVQNVUpm9OZIYogZOdgZGjO/SsKAAAA/elzIg==&bcsi_scan_filename=mgConvert2PDF.aspx

[Huguenot]

Seems to me that the data is valid, well aggregated and reviewed.

Although I appreciate some of the residents would like one (mainly in commercially affacted areas rather than commuter), it doesn't seem to me there is sufficient support to implment a CPZ in ED.

If there is an argument based on that data, I'd love to hear it - but I'd be walking away right now!

[James Barber]

You beat me to it Nicholas Spear.

[gsirett]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> You beat me to it Nicholas Spear.

I'm sure many people on this forum, and throughout the community are keen to hear your opinion of the report cllr barber

[James Barber]

Hi Giles,

This whole consultation has proven very controversial. So I'm not going to make any knee jerk reactions and to be honest I'm on my holidays from non urgent stuff until the new year.

Out of curiosity who leaked the report to you?

[mynamehere]

Well I'll wade in with the first knee jerk reaction. Statistics and sampling are a science and not something Southwark has to invent. The words and the methods are well established. To sample randomly means to glean responce to unbiased questions from a statistically clear cross section of the population. One or at most 2 surveyors standing / walking designated routes knocking on prestablished doors, asking every 10th person, every xth car driver/ parker at 7am, 10am, noon, 4pm, 6pm, 8pm and so compiling 50 full responces including originating postcost/ living post code/ destination post code. All in a rigorous holds water questionnaire would cost ?5,000 and any academic statistician would verify its worth.

What Southwark does is endless paper and random conversation. No one ends up better informed and everyone ends up angrier. I remember when bicycles were rediscovered about 5 years ago and Southwark set up a fact finding group to poll and tally where people wanted bike lock hoops. The answer without asking is EVERYWHERE are there are hundreds too few about.

The absurd paper hoops telling us holiday refuse collection. How much did they cost? Well they're all over the streets. Who needed them to know the collections are one day off assuming government does not entirely break down in the interum.

The respondents on this forum are absolutely correct that the government twists responces to suit their own objectives. In the CPZ question they ask for people to return a questionnaire and then the report correctly says that only certain types of people return questionnairs and so the results are biased. Well then as above conduct a statistically accurate random survey. When it suits Government (Southwark) to stop something they weigh one government solicited self interested negative responce against hundreds of non respondents (this is a real example but entirely different to CPZs). Conversely and equally perversely when (in the CPZ responce) over 20% respond to a blanket survey endless provided here on the forum and through letter boxes and on-line and then the responces are called self-serving and biased and the 80% who didn't respond are then imagined to think and feel any way the report writer would like.

All the legal treacle worded paper Southwark generates and stuffs into doors or hangs from posts solicits private biased opinions which are then "analysed" to suit.

Statistics and surveys are mathematical tools.

[Hare]

Mynamehere, that is very incisive; thank you!

Yes, there?s an awful lot to suggest that Southwark?s ?consultation process? lacks intellectual rigour and is woefully inadequate. From beginning to end, the whole thing looks very much like a ?pick & mix? approach to statistics.

For instance, we?re told that ?in recent years, the council have received 44 requests from residents in the study area for a CPZ. This is where a resident has either made either a complaint or a general enquiry to the council, either directly to officers or via their elected members to request resident parking controls or a consultation. The highest number of requests have been received from East Dulwich Road (10) Derwent Grove (8), St Francis Road ( 6 ). It is noted that the broader Grove Vale and Lordship Lane area of Southwark has the highest concentration of these requests of anywhere in the borough?

Yes, but what do they mean by ?recent years?? - 2, 3, 4, or maybe even 5? - it makes a difference! And were these 44 ?requests? from 44 different people or were they multiple requests from just a small number of people? - and which were ?complaints? and which were ?general enquiries?? Southwark doesn?t seem to know (I asked one of the officers at the exhibition and he certainly didn?t) and what?s more, of course, one suspects they don?t really care since this dodgy statistic allows them to get over the starting line and justify holding a consultation.

Furthermore, think about this: requests from Francis Road are cited as a factor contributing to the case for a Consultation, but when they consulted people in Francis Road, the residents were actually opposed to the CDZ proposal. According to the report, only 20 people out of 57 possible respondents were moved to reply to the consultation and of those 20, 13 were opposed to it (59%) and only 7 (32%) were actually in favour ? and that was in a road where, we?re told, people were actively raising the issue!

I could go on about the basis on which the recommendations in the consultation report are being made, but I?ll spare you that. Meantime, on the basis of the above example, I think the case for describing their approach to statistics and data as ?pick and mix? begins to look rather persuasive.

In view of this flawed data, I?d really like to hear James Barber?s defence for Southwark?s case for why the consultation was embarked on in the first place. How about it, James?

[Bobby P]

Well, we're not off the hook yet, but this has the potential of being a nice Xmas present, or at least (in rugby terms) a try that then needs to be converted at the Community Council meetings: there, Southwark should be told in no uncertain terms that the people have spoken clearly in this consultation, and that no CPZ of any sort should be implemented. Merry Christmas!

[henryb]

"Southwark should be told in no uncertain terms that the people have spoken clearly in this consultation, and that no CPZ of any sort should be implemented"

What about the majority of people who live on Derwent and Tintagel who do want a CPZ? Why are you ignoring their views? When you say "the people" do you actually mean "the people - except the ones who disagree with me"? Or the ?the people - who don?t have a problem parking but would like to carry on parking where ever they like regardless of how difficult that makes other people?s lives??

Being able to park near your home should take precedence over the parking convenience of shoppers/commuters; it should be up to the people who live on the street that has the problem whether it should be a CPZ or not.

[Loz]

henryb Wrote:

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

> Being able to park near your home should take precedence over the parking convenience of

> shoppers/commuters; it should be up to the people who live on the street that has the problem

> whether it should be a CPZ or not.

I would agree to that on one condition. All homes on streets wanting to be part of a CPZ may purchase a windscreen sticker allowing them to park on their given street. However, the same sticker also makes it an offence to park that car on ANY other residential street in ED (CPZ or otherwise).

Still want one, HenryB? Where will you park when your CPZ street is full (as it almost certainly will be)?

[henryb]

I don't live in the CPZ. The CPZ would inconvenience me if I ever wanted to park around there just as much as anyone else outside the zone. It will not benefit me in anyway. That doesn't change my view that it should primarily up the people who live on the street where there is a problem. The people who actually have the problem.

If other streets have problems with non residence parking there then they should consider trying a CPZ as well.

[peterstorm1985]

I find it very odd that individual streets are considered to be an area that can be treated separately. When I moved to my street I didn't expect that we would be able to command different treatment from Southwark council than any other street, nor did I expect to be able to actively impose a majority rule on immediate neighbours that might cause personal suffering.

I think everyone who has followed this thread knows that if Derwent Grove gets a CPZ then it will only work if some of the car owners in that street choose not to pay up (or cannot pay due to economic hardship). Those car owners will then have to park somewhere else, and I can't see them wanting to park far away so we know which streets will then become persuaded.......

[Oggie]

The council tried to include Oglander Road in the CPZ zone about 8 years ago. We (local residents) fought back vigorously with a door to door petition signing campaign and it worked. Local sentiment was overwhelmingly against it. I think the council thought they could get the current CPZ proposal approved by not including Oglander Road (and not informing any of the residents that I've spoken to) so there would be fewer objections.

Please write in, even though the consultation has closed your local councillors should be made aware of your objections. Local permits often double in price in the second or third year of implementation and the zone usually ends up expanding too.

As bonamone said earlier:

Please don't just confine your views to the forum, I urge you to make you views known at [email protected] and suggest you cc [email protected] and [email protected] with reference to "Grove Vale - proposed Controlled Parking Zone, GV"

[Zak]

Some of you might like to follow this up???

Councillor Peter John (South Camberwell Councillor & Leader of the Council) wrote to residents on 17th November and stated ?Please be assured that if the objections outweigh support, then a CPZ will not happen?. (see attached copy)

Looking at the recommendations contained in the Officers? report (see below, it seems that despite the majority of people having expressed their opposition to the proposed CPZ, there is still a move to introduce a modified CPZ of some kind - which if you were a cynic, then you might see as the thin end of the wedge.

Anyone who agrees with the analysis below, might also like to contact him and suggest that as Leader of the Council, he honours his undertaking to bow to the views of the majority.

____________________________________________________________

2nd January 2012 Your Ref: VW-654/ lj

Dear Councillor John,

Re: Grove Vale Area CPZ Consultation - Honouring Your Undertaking To Bow To The Views Of The Majority.

I?m writing to you as my local councillor & Leader of Southwark Council in connection with the outcome of the recent Consultation around the introduction of a CPZ in Grove Vale and in light of the undertaking that you gave to residents in your letter of 17th November 2011.

In your response to the many letters of concern that you obviously received about the Grove Vale CPZ Consultation, you replied by way of a ?standard? letter, jointly with Councillor Veronica Ward, in which you stated: : ?Please be assured that if the objections outweigh support, then a CPZ will not happen?

1. The Results of the Consultation

The report of the Consultation has now been published and the headline findings are:

Overall, only 7% of residents agree with the introduction of a CPZ in their street.

- Out of a possible total of 1159 respondents, a mere 84 (7%) responded in favour of the introduction of a CPZ in their street ( Ref.p17 of the Consultation Report)

- Of the total 241 who actually responded, out of the possible 1159, 59% (184) objected to the CPZ in their street & only 35% (84) were in favour (Ref. p17 of the Consultation Report)

By any reckoning this must surely count as a ?no? vote and the objections outweighed support.

The Consultation Report also records that in addition there were 9 petitions handed in from residents and businesses outside of the proposed CPZ, but potentially affected by it. These accounted for a total of 1855 signatories, of these 1826 (98%) recorded against the CPZ, 29 (2%) in favour. Surely another indication of the lack of support among East Dulwich residents ( Ref. Consultation Report p32).

2. The Recommendations Arising From The Consultation.

The proposal as it stood was clearly rejected by a majority of residents, but Southwark appear now to have in effect ?moved the goal posts? seemingly to justify the introduction of some sort of a reduced CPZ. As you are aware, your officers have written a report for the Community Council Meetings on 10th January & 24th January suggesting three options for introducing a modified CPZ:

?Option 3. Introduce a one hour CPZ on an experimental basis in Derwent Grove only.

Option 4. Introduce a one hour CPZ on an experimental basis in the following streets only: Derwent Grove, Elsie Road, Jarvis Road, Melbourne Grove, Oxonian Street, Tintagel Crescent and Zenoria Street.

Option 5. Introduce a one hour CPZ on an experimental basis in the following streets only: Derwent Grove, Elsie Road and Tintagel Crescent?

These three options actually relate to seven separate roads, five of which actually rejected the proposal for CPZ!

In fact, out of 22 roads covered by the Consultation, only a mere 2 roads had a majority in favour of introducing a CPZ in their street ( Derwent Grove 19/12 & Tintagel Crescent 8/4) and even then it was only 27 people ( 23% ) who bothered to respond to the 117 consultation documents delivered in the two roads All other five roads rejected the proposal (Ref. table summarising results road by road p17)

Why are five roads which registered their opposition to a CPZ in their street (and where only 13% of respondents were in favour), now included in recommendations 4 and 5, when you assured us that ?if the objections outweigh support, then a CPZ will not happen??

In light of the above, I?d like your reassurance on two issues. Namely that:

1. As my local Councillor and Leader of the Council you will honour your undertaking (?Please be assured that if the objections outweigh support, then a CPZ will not happen?) in light of only 7% of residents supporting the proposal &

2. You and your colleagues will accordingly not pursue Recommendations 3-5 for what will surely appear to most people as a cynical attempt to introduce a CPZ via the backdoor, in the face of overall opposition to your proposals.

Since your letter of 17/11/11 was addressed to your constituents at large, I?m copying this letter to other recipients and interested parties. I look forward to receiving your assurance that you will abide by the results of your own exercise in local democracy.

Yours sincerely,

[gsirett]

I'm sorry, I have been accused of being a bit forthright with my views on Cllr James Barber in respect to this whole CPZ business but after reading this http://jamesbarber.mycouncillor.org.uk/2011/12/23/controlled-parking-consultation/

I think my views are now justified.

- 70% saying No to ?Do you agree with the introduction of a CPZ in your street??

- Only 2/22 Roads consulted in favour of CPZ

- 98% of petition signatures saying ?No?

So where does that Blog come from Cllr Barber ? You have cynically portrayed the data in a way that gives the impression that there was an equal balance to the results of this consultation. A brilliant piece of political writing: you write a summary of the consultation report without mentioning any of the key results. No wonder you were upset when the report results came out a bit early - didn't give you time to spin it properly did it ?

When are you going to come out an represent the people who have elected you ? Shouldn?t you now be focused on representing the views of the 100?s of your constituents who have objected to this scheme ?

I?m not in Cllr Barbers Ward, but I suggest that those of you who are, write to him and ask him to properly represent their views instead of pursuing his own agenda behind a veil of impartiality

[Ontherun]

Mr Barber's blog states 'With a further 1,826 people signing a variety of other petitions by people from adjacent roads' forgetting to add '....OF WHICH 98% PETITION SIGNATURES SAY "NO" TO CPZ' An easy mistake to make leaving that little bit of information out ;)

[Penguin68]

Mr Barber also says in this blog "I suspect everyone agrees with some degree of controlled parking ? even if only disabled parking bays outside disabled people?s homes " - I'm sorry - but that's quite disengenuous - to equate 'some' support for CPZs - as he implictly does, with support for disabled people to have special treatment in respect of their disability - presumably also to suggest that people who don't support controlled parking are 'against' the disabled, is simply a rhetorical device, and not really a nice one at that.

I urgently suggest that those who do not support a CPZ and are James' constituents make sure that they register their unhappiness on his blog, since I suspect he will use reponses there to pray-in-aid his support for one of the 3 'trials' being proposed.

'Trials' by the way - and I wonder who will be judging their success and continuation? - presumably the same people who decided to propose these outwith the clear direction from the 'consultation'.

As to 'some streets voted in favour' well, I'm sure that's true of the local elections for streets voting 'in favour' of a conservative or labour candidate - James was elected because a majority of those voting in his whole constituency voted in favour of him (as they have voted against the CPZ). It was the apparatchiks who created the CPZ voting constituency who determined this constituency and they are hung by their own petard - or should streets who voted labour or conservative now call for a councillor of their choice to represent them on the council? On a trial basis of course, with them determining the duration and success of the trial?

[James Barber]

Hi Penguin68,

You've quoted me out of context. I wrote "The council officer reporthas just been released about proposed a controlled parking zone near East Dulwich station. I suspect everyone agrees with some degree of controlled parking ? even if only disabled parking bays outside disabled people?s homes ? but the degree of other reasons for controlled parking is very controversial."Clearly the proposed controlled parking on streets around East Dulwich is controversial.

For those that care to read the whole item I wrote.

I also would welcome people telling me their views individually.

The questionaire specifically wanted to find which streets people supported controlled parking and how if neighbouring streets had controlled parking would change, if at all, residents views of controlled parking on their streets.

I haven't made up my mind but I am worried that the cheap easy politics of this is to go with the do nothing option and make soft soapy noises to people on the streets that feel angry about parking pressures.

The report didn't make it clear that over the last three years of the 130 complaints made to Southwark about parking pressures 44 were on these streets.

[gsirett]

James Barber Wrote:

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

>

> I also would welcome people telling me their views

> individually.

what, so they can be as open and transparent as this process has been so far ?

People have told you. They've told you here. They've told you by petition, they've told you during your own consultation. But time and time again, you quote to us anecdotal information and blatantly "washed" summaries.

> I haven't made up my mind but I am worried that

> the cheap easy politics of this is to go with the

> do nothing option and make soft soapy noises to

> people on the streets that feel angry about

> parking pressures.

> The report didn't make it clear that over the last

> three years of the 130 complaints made to

> Southwark about parking pressures 44 were on these

> streets.

James - you are talking utter utter B&8llocks. The report made that VERY clear. It was the entire raison d'etre for a consultation. The report also made the following VERY clear :

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)

It also made it very clear that, in the period of a few weeks 1826 people signed petitions against this scheme.

Based on 2 weeks, thats 130 people per day. Versus the 44 in 3 YEARS that you quote who made complaints.

So, why on why do you choose to ignore this? - what on earth is the point of a consultation ?

I agree with previous poster: your days as a local councillor are going to be numbered if you continue to ignore your voters.

And BTW: I also agree. Your attempt to align a CPZ with disabled bays was a cheap trick which shows the contempt with which you are treating people on this issue. For the record: I think disabled bays , double yellow lines and school zig-zags are all great...... I think poorly planned, revenue raising, inappropriate controlled parking isn't great (as are gerrymandering local councillors)

[mynamehere]

If East Dulwich has better Rail access, if people walked and rode bicycles, if people had tiny urban cars and only one per house, if Southward cherished open space over antiquated ticky tacky high density residences: IF... then there would be a structurally different enlightened planned environment and this thread wouldn't exist.

Southwark constructed the CPZ survey and the way it was handled so Southwark cannot say it does not like the results. The "44 complaints received" over the years might be part of the 95 people responding who want some form of control. You certainly cannot just add them in on top as Mr Barber suggests. You should have and should take proper statistically valid samples and that's that. Deeply ordinary policy makers generating weak flawed policy stokes anger and anger is a tinderbox. Parking/ refuse and so forth are all results of entrenched behavioural/ structural problems that government won't touch except like the wizzard of oz as a tiny weak pretend power which can only pull strings behind a curtain and make gruff noises through a microphone. Or trick people when they're not looking. Or use one red herring to distract while other stuff is being done under radar. Without a clear understanding of a long term future, unable to discuss with and lead and educate from the front, government waffles and fudges and and huffs and puffs and psycologically "nudges" and simply slowly degrades freedoms and providing services.

On Parking

Citizens

There are too many cars on the streets.

People buy too many cars

There are more cars than house fronts

Cars are too big

Cars are too fast

Cars are a huge part of environmental problems and international petrolium/ fossil fuel/ agricultural conflicts

People do not obey existing laws

People park fully intending to make it impossible for other parkers so as to "protect" their car's space

Government

tax second cars? take a stand on the size of cars or other car related stuff? survey streets carefully for badly drawn restrictions that limit parking? (my street certainly loses 1/3 of space to thoughtlessly painted lines)

Parking law enforcement and street signage designed to trick and punish to raise money weave back and forth between legitimate and corrupt governmental use of power. I absolutely think some subcontracted parking control firms tolerate corrupt officers on the street to raise money from tickets. Parked empty cars are soft easy cash cows. Drivers in cars are scary.

mynamehere Wrote:

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

> Well I'll wade in with the first knee jerk

> reaction. Statistics and sampling are a science

> and not something Southwark has to invent. The

> words and the methods are well established. To

> sample randomly means to glean responce to

> unbiased questions from a statistically clear

> cross section of the population. One or at most 2

> surveyors standing / walking designated routes

> knocking on prestablished doors, asking every 10th

> person, every xth car driver/ parker at 7am, 10am,

> noon, 4pm, 6pm, 8pm and so compiling 50 full

> responces including originating postcost/ living

> post code/ destination post code. All in a

> rigorous holds water questionnaire would cost

> ?5,000 and any academic statistician would verify

> its worth.

>

> What Southwark does is endless paper and random

> conversation. No one ends up better informed and

> everyone ends up angrier. I remember when

> bicycles were rediscovered about 5 years ago and

> Southwark set up a fact finding group to poll and

> tally where people wanted bike lock hoops. The

> answer without asking is EVERYWHERE are there are

> hundreds too few about.

>

> The absurd paper hoops telling us holiday refuse

> collection. How much did they cost? Well they're

> all over the streets. Who needed them to know the

> collections are one day off assuming government

> does not entirely break down in the interum.

>

> The respondents on this forum are absolutely

> correct that the government twists responces to

> suit their own objectives. In the CPZ question

> they ask for people to return a questionnaire and

> then the report correctly says that only certain

> types of people return questionnairs and so the

> results are biased. Well then as above conduct a

> statistically accurate random survey. When it

> suits Government (Southwark) to stop something

> they weigh one government solicited self

> interested negative responce against hundreds of

> non respondents (this is a real example but

> entirely different to CPZs). Conversely and

> equally perversely when (in the CPZ responce) over

> 20% respond to a blanket survey endless provided

> here on the forum and through letter boxes and

> on-line and then the responces are called

> self-serving and biased and the 80% who didn't

> respond are then imagined to think and feel any

> way the report writer would like.

>

> All the legal treacle worded paper Southwark

> generates and stuffs into doors or hangs from

> posts solicits private biased opinions which are

> then "analysed" to suit.

>

> Statistics and surveys are mathematical tools.

[James Barber]

But people on several streets want controlled parking on their streets. A tiny number of streets have also said they'd want controlled parking if neighbouring streets have it.

It would be easiest thing in the world to ignore those minority of streets, would make perfect political sense to go with the apparent majority, and make my life easier but I want to know how people on those streets that feel desperate enough to ask in the majority for controlled parking will be helped. I've not heard any realistic alternative solutions proposed yet. And brow beating them wont make their problems go away.

[buddug]

James Barber said it "would make perfect political sense to go with the apparent majority..."

Yes, and we live in a democracy, James. Deal with it.

[gsirett]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> But people on several streets want controlled

> parking on their streets.

Oh My god YOU'RE DOING IT AGAIN: TWO (repeat TWO) streets out of 22 have said yes so you turn that into "several"?

> It would be easiest thing in the world to ignore

> those minority of streets, would make perfect

> political sense to go with the apparent majority,

> and make my life easier but I want to know how

> people on those streets that feel desperate enough

> to ask in the majority for controlled parking will

> be helped. I've not heard any realistic

> alternative solutions proposed yet. And brow

> beating them wont make their problems go away.

James: please stop this, you are making an utter fool of yourself (IMO). Those 44 "desperate" people (crawling over burnt out cars no doubt) to come and tell you their woes. I'll give you 2000 "desperate" people who objected to this so strongly that they signed petitions

Two "realistic" solutions HAVE been recommended in the report (do nothing or make some simple [non chargeable] amendments to the existing road markings) - but you seem to ignore them ?

What is SO dishonourable about your behaviour is that you have stressed time and time again that we should all trust the consultation process, not second guess it's results. In fact, you encouraged any petitions to reflect it's format.

But now you ignore it ?

I think you did all of that, on the basis that you EXPECTED the consultation return a pro-CPZ result. The consultation has now returned overwhelming against a CPZ, so suddenly you become defender of the few. Funnily enough, that fits perfectly with the quickly-dreamt-up Southwark options to put in single/3 Road CPZ's

This is getting smelly again

I'll remind you of some of your own words over the past weeks:

9th November:

"i didn't ask officers for this and was surprised when it came up on Labours plans but I'm delighted RESIDENTS ARE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY WHETHER THEY RESPOND THEY WANT IT OR NOT."

7th November:

"But the public consultation is about streets near East Dulwich station with TWO POSSIBLE versions of controlled parking."

I think I've said various times THAT I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THE COUNCIL TO HAVE FORMALLY CONSULTED MORE WIDELY. That as an opposition councillor I failed to persuade the administration to formally consult adjoining streets

7 November

"I've suggested to people in neighbouring streets that they respond to the consultation and if they feel very strongly that they call on neighbours."

6 Nov

"The advice I've given to people is call on your neighbours, ask them whether they agree or disagree with controlled parking on their street, if they do whether the heavy or lite versions, and whether if a neighbouring street they'd want controlled parking on their street. By capturing those for and against you make such a petition look more credible. This is exactly the same advice I've given to those in favour who've asked.

3rd Nov

"The evidence seems clear that a CPZ would help BUT is the price in money etc worth paying?

I ENCOURAGE AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION BY RESPONDING TO THE CONSULTATION - " - "

[first mate]

James, now you are going to use the I am standing up for a minority line. It is apparent that you are absolutely set on one course and one way or another you will get your way.

It is pretty depressing really. It feels like engaging with someone who is determined to convince you that the moon is made of cheese, despite very clear evidence that it is not. How can you simply sweep aside the overwhelming majority that have shown you they do not want CPZ? What would it take to convince you? I'm beginning to think that even if only one person wanted it, that for you would be sufficient reason to embark on some trial CPZ,s. This does not feel like a democratic process. The arrogance of those behind the process is breathtaking.