E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[buddug]

And why do you say the "apparent" majority. You really don't accept that most people on or near the targeted streets don't want a CPZ do you?

[Cyclemonkey]

Wow - controversial subject!1

I live in ED but am happy to say as a non car owning tenant i have little persoanl opinion on the subject.

However walking along lordship lane yesterday i saw that clearly something has to be done - the parking and traffic situation is ridiculous (as well as the dangerous driving, bad parking, lack of decent road crossing once you get further away from the pedestrian crossing by the EDT.

As a non driver the one thing that always amuses me is motorists who compain about problems (lack of parking, congestion etc..) without realising that they are part of the problem - it is always some other drivers fault right?

So i suppose i have two questions:

1. for those against the CPZ - uif we admit that parking is an issue in East Dulwich - if this isn't the answer what is?

2. For traders - would a CPZ really affect business that much? As soemone who used to work in planning and town centre policy i understand and occasionally agree with arguements traders make for more parking and against pedestrianisation schemes. However Lordship Lane is not a major shopping area - it is a local high street which probably has a radius of around 2- 3 miles max for people. Furthermore the main offer of shops and services sell stuff that does not need a car to transport. With the amount of trains and busesin he area do many people honestly need to drive there? Comming from the countryside one of my main loves about living in inner london is i no longer need to manitain and run a car - a huge financial burden lifted from me.

i would be interested in some honest answers from people who do drive to go shopping in LL as to why they do and how far they have travelled from and whether they would stiop shopping there if they were not able to drive (BTW do not use the "if you had kids" argument - my partner and i have been bringing up a child in inner london for the last 10 years with no car - we are fitter and have a child who does not mind walking!)

[BrandNewGuy]

And why do *we* have to come up with another "solution", otherwise we get a CPZ? I've said it before, so I'll bore you by saying it again: it's possible that there isn't a "solution" that is better than the status quo. Do you agree or not?

[first mate]

As I recall, one of the few in favour of CPZ on this forum said it was because they could not park outside their house to unload shopping and that they often had to park in another street- I believe having children was an additional factor.

Most of us against CPZ accept that it is unlikely we can regularly park outside our house and now and then we might have to park on another street, but, as you suggest, that is hardly a great hardship as most of us have legs and arms. The disabled have always had the right to a special parking bay. This setup seems to have worked well for many years as suggested by the majority gainst CPZ.

[peckhamboy]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> 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.

James - two (not several - and in fact the same number as the "tiny minority" that indicated they would change their minds) streets voted in the majority (of respondents) for controlled parking. The majority (of residents) in those streets however either voted no or didn't even feel strongly enough to respond. Are you seriously saying that you think there is something democratic about imposing a CPZ because 27 people were in favour of it? Because that's what you are suggesting. And only two streets suggested they would change their mind if the street next to them got a CPZ - neither of those streets is next to a street that wants a CPZ so it is beyond disingenuous to even mention them in your justification for trying to press ahead with a CPZ. Their response was "no".

Overall, the response rate was only 20%. Of that, the overall positive response was 35%. So approx 7% of the population of the proposed CPZ generally is in favour. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

This is not the first time the council has tried to impose a CPZ, and not the first time it has been rejected. Please get the message and stop presuming that you know best and that we would all change our minds if only we understood.

There are enough genuine problems for you to work on without needing you to invent new ones just because you like the 'solution'.

[Cyclemonkey]

first mate that's interesting? i suppose there are complex issues:

1. people who agree who want to park outside their hosue and resent visotrs using "their space"

2. People who don't agree because they don't want to pay to park outside their house and also visitors who want to be able to park

BrandNewGuy - interesting question - personally as a non driver parkigng isn't a problem for me but i always assume it is given the amount motorists winge about it! :) - do you think that there is a isn't a problem with parking here? i can't claim to know anything about the residents parking situation, however as a regular cyclist and pedestrian on LL i definitely think there is a growing parking/traffic problem there.

[gsirett]

Cyclemonkey Wrote:

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

> Wow - controversial subject!1

>

> I live in ED but am happy to say as a non car

> owning tenant i have little persoanl opinion on

> the subject.

>

> However walking along lordship lane yesterday i

> saw that clearly something has to be done - the

> parking and traffic situation is ridiculous (as

> well as the dangerous driving, bad parking, lack

> of decent road crossing once you get further away

> from the pedestrian crossing by the EDT.

>

> As a non driver the one thing that always amuses

> me is motorists who compain about problems (lack

> of parking, congestion etc..) without realising

> that they are part of the problem - it is always

> some other drivers fault right?

>

> So i suppose i have two questions:

>

> 1. for those against the CPZ - uif we admit that

> parking is an issue in East Dulwich - if this

> isn't the answer what is?

>

> 2. For traders - would a CPZ really affect

> business that much? As soemone who used to work

> in planning and town centre policy i understand

> and occasionally agree with arguements traders

> make for more parking and against

> pedestrianisation schemes. However Lordship Lane

> is not a major shopping area - it is a local high

> street which probably has a radius of around 2- 3

> miles max for people. Furthermore the main offer

> of shops and services sell stuff that does not

> need a car to transport. With the amount of

> trains and busesin he area do many people honestly

> need to drive there? Comming from the countryside

> one of my main loves about living in inner london

> is i no longer need to manitain and run a car - a

> huge financial burden lifted from me.

>

> i would be interested in some honest answers from

> people who do drive to go shopping in LL as to why

> they do and how far they have travelled from and

> whether they would stiop shopping there if they

> were not able to drive (BTW do not use the "if you

> had kids" argument - my partner and i have been

> bringing up a child in inner london for the last

> 10 years with no car - we are fitter and have a

> child who does not mind walking!)

CycleMonkey

Welcome to the thread

your comments are competly valid and sort of hit the nail on the head. There are parking problems, nobbody denies, but how to fix them (if at all) is the question.

The proposed CPZ wouldn't sort out the problems on LL becuase it doesn't cover it. It's a badly thought out scheme that uses commuters as it's reason to be. The proposed scheme actually will reduce the number of avaialbe parking spaces and have major knock-on effects on it's edge (think Ashbourne Grove, Melbourne, Lordship lane), making parking worse there.

If you look back through this thread you will seem overwhelmingly people object to the scheme proposed BUT they are not necessairly buring their heads in the sand on the issue.

[Cyclemonkey]

gsiret - thanks - a useful summary. So if LL is not included why are the LL traders getting worried?

I am astonished people drive to East Dulwich Rail Station - have they not heard of buses? (or indeed their own legs - saves quite a bit on the expensive gym membership)

I accept that people in London will always need to drive whether due to their work (anti social hours, carrying tools etc..) becuase of disabilty or large numbers of children etc.. But i think a lot of people in london see driving as the default option when it really isn't that difficult to cut back or even eliminate car usage in many areas of London. We walk, cycle, bus or train everywhere. Use online delivery for all bulky items and use streetcar/streetvan for those times when you just need a car.

[Earl Aelfheah]

What is this entitlement to park outside your house, when you have neither a space, nor a garage on your property?

Why should the council privatise sections of the public highway like this and in the process of doing so cause inconvenience to others who either can't, or do not wish to pay for use of a street that they already fund through their taxes?

[gsirett]

Cyclemonkey Wrote:

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

> gsiret - thanks - a useful summary. So if LL is

> not included why are the LL traders getting

> worried?

>

> I am astonished people drive to East Dulwich Rail

> Station - have they not heard of buses? (or indeed

> their own legs - saves quite a bit on the

> expensive gym membership)

>

> I accept that people in London will always need to

> drive whether due to their work (anti social

> hours, carrying tools etc..) becuase of disabilty

> or large numbers of children etc.. But i think a

> lot of people in london see driving as the default

> option when it really isn't that difficult to cut

> back or even eliminate car usage in many areas of

> London. We walk, cycle, bus or train everywhere.

> Use online delivery for all bulky items and use

> streetcar/streetvan for those times when you just

> need a car.

CycleMonkey.

Sorry, this is going to sound almost rude.............The consultation about whether people want a CPZ or not has now finished.

the pro's & cons of cars, CPZ's generally, this specific scheme, the councils poor approiach to consultation, the revnue raisd, etc,etc,etc have now all been done to death on this thread. If you have a look back, you'll see.

The results were an overwhelimng objection. The debate is now whether Southwark are going to honour the results of that consultation

[Earl Aelfheah]

What problem does a CPZ actually address? The perceived problem of a small minority who feel that they have a special right to treat the bit of street outside their house as private property, to the exclusion of others? This despite the fact that the road is paid for / maintained by everyone and therefore for the use of everyone.

But hold on. The council don?t mind double charging for this section of road (maybe treble charging as they can issue more permits than spaces). And the homeowner can afford to pay in order to exclude others....

[henryb]

> Use online delivery for all bulky items and use

> streetcar/streetvan for those times when you just

> need a car.

Perhaps that's an answer then - put in a load of car club parking places on the problem streets. Then poor old James will have something to say to the people who complain about parking pressure on their street - "Join a car club".

[prickle]

The proposed options are:

1. Do nothing.

2. Do a little remarking of local roads.

3. Introduce 1hr Mon-Fri controlled parking to Derwent Grove

4. Introduce 1 hr Mon-Fri controlled parking to Derwent Grove, Elsie Road, Melbourne Grove (Grove Vale to East Dulwich Grove), Oxonaina Street, Tintagel Crescent, Tintagel Gardens and Zenoria Street.

5. Introduce 1 hr Mon-Fri controlled parking to Derwent Grove, Elsie Road and Tintagel Crescent.

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

Can someone clarify where we go from here?

What will happen re: new options as outlined in the report? Will there be another consultation to see which option will be selected?

As a resident of Elsie who voted 'no', I would feel very hard done by if option 4 or 5 was adopted without further consultation with me. Surely not v. democratic?

[Cyclemonkey]

gsirett - no offence taken! I realise i have come slightly late to the debate. I only really found out about the CPZ reading notices in shop windows when wanderign around LL at Xmas.

Reading the thread i'm not sure a CPZ woudl solve the issue as a wider London or even nationwide initiative is needed to tackle car dependency

[fredricketts]

The car club is another way of giving our parking

Spaces away to private contractors to earn money out

Of taking away premium parking spaces,and the car club probably

Gives gifts to the council for our public parking spaces.

[trizza]

Sometimes there is not really a solution to a "problem". In my view the consultation results clearly show that, taken as a whole, the residents in the consultation area do not regard the introduction of a CPZ to be necessary. That could be for a variety of reasons, including: because they don't really think there is a problem that needs addressing; or they don't like the idea of a CPZ.

Either way, it seems to be that should be the end of the debate in regard to the introduction of a CPZ - it should not go ahead.

To try and use the marginal support from two streets as a basis on which to introduce some form of limited CPZ would, IMO, be ridiculous given, amongst other things, the impact it will have on neighbouring streets.

Frankly, the whole process is still suggestive of an attempt by the Council to introduce a CPZ regardless of the outcome of their consultation (which was biased anyway). They are paying a long game on this and know there will be more scope to increase the CPZ in the future if it is implemented in a small area now (even two streets...). I don't believe for a moment that CPZ are not revenue raising for councils and the money they generate can be used to offset the transport budget generally.

[Penguin68]

I would have absolutely no problem with Mr Barber, who is after all a politician with his own views, making the case for a CPZ, as so many on this thread have made the case against, but I am concerned that he continues with the assertion that he is simply open to listening to debate and has no views or axe to grind when that is very clearly not so. The 'normal' route for someone in his position, I would have thought, would have been to openly share his views on the values of a CPZ - why wouldn't he? - his views are as valid as anyone elses's and indeed I would expect him to have well thought-through opionions (even if I don't agree with them).

However, as a local representative I would also expect him to either follow the clearly declared wishes of a majority of those expressing a view (once they had done so) and support these in council or, if he could not do this in conscience, withdraw from the debate or even resign. I would not expect him to continue to fight 'his' side against the wishes of a majority of his constituents who have expressed an opionion.

Yet his blog suggests that the issue is still open for debate and discussion (of course, this is based on the weasely way in which new options have now been introduced after the 'consultation' is closed).

He writes on his blog "I can see arguments for and against all of the proposed options. If you have views tell me" Against the 'no CPZ' and for the 3 trials I would guess.

As Bertold Brecht wrote (almost) "if the people vote the wrong way, "Change the people."

[first mate]

P68 wrote,

As Bertold Brecht wrote (almost) "if the people vote the wrong way, "Change the people."

in a nutshell and very scary!

[eddie]

Councillor Barrie Hargrove, the Cabinet Member for Transport, will be taking the final decision on the CPZ. Councillor Hargrove in the past has stated they he makes decisions based on the advice from the Community Council.

My big fear is that some local councillors may abstain from the vote at the community council meeting. The result of such action may well be;

1. The council have not received ?clear guidance? from the community council and therefore believe they have a mandate to push the CPZ through,

2. Some local councillors will be forever able to say that they did not approve the CPZ (hiding behind their choice to abstain). The reality is that they did not oppose it based on the majority view of the electorate.

I implore all local councillors to stand up and be counted and either vote in favour or against the CPZ at the community council meeting.

[first mate]

eddie,

Can members of the public attend as a show of hands against? Also how can we ensure proper scrutiny of the meeting and accompanying process? What you suggest has an awful ring of truth about it.

I wonder if the council have counted on an income stream from imposition of CPZ to such an extent that they cannot afford to see it jettisoned? It is almost certain that every trick, every twist and turn, will be used to try to drive CPZ through.

[gsirett]

Eddie is right. The weazles that you voted for will do just that.

What can you do ?

1. Write to your councillors to ask that the result of the consultation is properly honoured. I worte to mine and asked:

"I am writing to ask you formally, as my councillors that you take some action on this issue to represent my views (which I'm sure reflect the majority in the ward). I know that you have all been interested in this subject and been involved to a certain degree but , to my knowledge, none of you have come out clearly in objection to the scheme to date. I believe that it is now time for you to do so. In that this is a single person, executive decision, I believe that the time for carefully chosen, balanced views has finished.

2. Make sure you attend the relevant community council meeting. DO NOT RELY ON OTHERS TO DO IT FOR YOU.

[first mate]

gsirett,

can we post up here again when the relevant meetings are? Will write, as you suggest.

[first mate]

I would add that if the decision rests with the community council, voted on by an assortment of councillors each 'interpreting' the results of the 'consultation' in the way that suits them (as we have seen some councillors doing on this forum), or, as you suggest, choosing abstention/political expediency- then what on earth was the point of consulting with any of the public in the first place?

[gsirett]

put these in your diary

DO NOT RELY ON OTHERS TO GO ON YOUR BEHALF - do not rely on your local councillors to represent your views (especially if you're in East Dulwich Ward)

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

[James Barber]

The decision making process for this is Cllr Barrie Hargrove making the decision in early February.

BUT he kindly agreed to my suggestion that the two community councils receive the officers report and make their views and recommentdations known.

Each community council provides an opportunity for deputations to state their views and cases and for petitions to be presented. I would recommend any party to take up either or both of these routes and opportunties. These meetings are also opportunities to ask questions of council officers.

To arrange a deputation or petition you need to contact the committee clerks - for Camberwell and for Dulwich Community council's it's Beverley Olamijulo