E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[Loz]

Actually, James' (and I suspect Southwark's) definition of local businesses as 'commuters' is rather interesting.

When the original issue was raised, the purpose of the CPZ was to, supposedly, solve the issue of 'commuter parking'. Now I suspect that everyone was like me and thought that this meant people driving their cars to somewhere near the station, leaping out and jumping on the train to central London. But it seems that a goodly proportion of these 'commuters' may actually be parking and then working in local shops.

Why is this significant?

Well, businesses inside the CPZ can also purchase CPZ parking permits (albeit at a greater cost). So, a good proportion of the 'commuter problem' will still exist AFTER the CPZ has been put in!! The 'commuters' will still be able to park inside the CPZ, so people dreaming of parking outside their house will still be parking the same distance from their house, but now paying ?120 a year to do so.

The only problem that this CPZ will fix is the hole in Southwark's budget.

[first mate]

Loz,

Excellent point. The case against keeps stacking up. I just wish James would come on and let us know where he stands, I'm having difficulty understanding exactly what it is he needs to figure out at this juncture- what is it that is holding him back, or to put it another way, who or what has such a hold over him that he cannot make his mind up?

[buddug]

"who or what has such a hold over him that he cannot make his mind up?" Interesting point, First Mate.

[tiddles]

actually I am wondering the same - yes some did say yes, but the majority said no, so why the deliberations? I think that it is a done deal and the consultation was merely a tick boxing exercise - tho unfortunately the right boxes weren't ticked. I think that James (and southwark) have already decided they want it and are trying to find a way around the results. Shame really as I have always been impressed with James as a councillor.

I remember when they tried to introduce a CPZ in the bellenden area and the residents organised petitions and won. The council said they would therefore would leave bellenden alone. three years later they tried again, and once again the residents had to go thro the hassle of organising petitions (and again the results were the same and no CPZ).

I am anti CPZs as, IMO they are just another way of the council getting money from car owners. The problem with East Dulwich is that there are lots of converted houses - so one property, two flats, two cars. Derwent road is a good example, so even with a CPZ there probably isn't enough space for all the cars - but you would end up paying ?100 - ?200 for chasing the same limited spaces. We have several friends in lambeth and they are charged over ?200 per permit - and one does find that the charges never seem to go down. Yes I know we should not be owning cars and using public transport but the reality is that in this day and age most people do.

[Senor Chevalier]

This is a case of needing to balance the needs of the individual (the few residents on a particular street wanting a CPZ) with the needs of the community. Looking at the narrow results in a particular street and using them to justify a CPZ in that street only constitutes antisocial behaviour. Each CPZ has a knock on effect on the neighbouring streets so these CPZ's have knock on effects and end up spreading in waves. Therefore the bar should be set high, i.e. there would need to be an absolutely overwhelmingly clear case to introduce ANY CPZ. Here the situation is the opposite.

I shouldn't worry too much. Whilst I agree it seems there may appear to be a latent desire by Southwark to bring on the CPZ, any decision to introduce it will be demonstrably indefensible and given the heat this issue has generated there would be a clear backlash. Not something any Councillors would want on their record.

Edited for clarity - the latent desire I refer to was "of Southwark" rather than of people generally who are clearly opposed.

[cookie]

This was discussed on BBC Radio London this morning.

I naively had quite an open mind on Southwark Coumcil's intentions until I heard their representative interviewed. They clearly want some kind of CPZ and seem determined to spin the consultation figures to justify it.

[Penguin68]

Despite the very strong local views clearly expressed about the introduction of a CPZ I would not be at all surprised if one of the 'wedge' options is not chosen, with the sure and clear belief that adjacent streets (not allowed to park in the wedge street/s when those residents are allowed to park in their road) will cause a CPZ cascade.

Mr Barber's weaseling about this is I suspect symptomatic of an agreed 'line' amongst councillors and is (outwith any of the 'rules' about use of revenues) all about revenue generation. Mr Barber belongs to a car-hating party so I am sure hitting car owners will not cause him many sleepless nights.

The fact is that if 100% of people had voted against a CPZ, sufficient flaws would have been found in the survey by the councillors and apparatchiks for the councillors to convince themselves that a CPZ was still the right answer. They are already discriminating between the views of local employers (with a considerable stake in the community and who of course create an economically vibrant community) and 'residents'. They (Mr Barber) have branded these employers as 'commuters' - to suggest they are somehow ciy fat cats making use of ED station - when they are the people who are providing incomes to local workers, and services to local residents.

This from a man who launched the pointless Waitrose and M&S thread about bringing in focal shops - who certainly will not to come into an area with CPZ restrictions hanging over it - why open where your footfall is being restricted by local councils?

[Senor Chevalier]

Oh really. How utterly tedious. This basically means a disproportionate effort is required to make majority views abundantly clear so their position is untenable and the right outcome is upheld. A massive hassle for everyone.

[first mate]

I would implore everyone to write to their local MP's and councillors demanding that the majority vote gainst CPZ as well as the democratic process is upheld. For CPZ to go ahead after all this would be an abuse of power.

It is vital that a large number of people against also attend the community council meetings on these dates- sorry for shouting but most will be so sorry if they realize that vloting with their feet could have stopped something that will affect all of us if pushed through.

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]

Hi Peckhamboy,

Melbourne Grove around the shops already has controlled parking - namely 30 mins no return for 2hours and some 3 hours maximum. Three of those businesses responded to the consultation that they didn't want any controlled parking.

That feels to me like asking to have your cake and eat it.

Hi Loz,

From memory business permits for CPZ are over ?400 pa. Which reduces the demand for them significantly but obviously runs the risk of parking elsewhere.

Hi puzzled,

People who have asked for controlled parking also care about East Dulwich and many have lived hear as long or longer than you. They just have different perspectives on what the problems of East Dulwich are. I'm afraid Southwark has never nuanced its consultations asking people how long they've lived or worked in an area and factoring that into any recommendations.

[prickle]

There is another thread about the redevelopment of the house on the corner of Elsie with East Dulwich Grove. The proposal is to knock it down and build a block of 5 flats in its place with ONLY 2 off road parking spaces provided. If planning approves this scheme then on Elsie (as the new block will front Elsie) could have an additional 3 residents cars (and poss more) adding to the parking pressure.

ETA :( :( (6)

[Penguin68]

I think, based on those assertions by Mr Barber above, that it is pretty clear which way he will be voting, and it will be the brave choice of supporting the minority opinion.

I am however concerned that he clearly believes that the length of residence in ED is a qualification for being 'more' heard than otherwise. I had thought that being a resident at all, and paying council tax etc.. would be a sufficient reason for him to be listening to constituents - or is he playing the 'incomer' card to wind people up against anti-CPZers. They are just newly arrived foreigners and not worth listening to, not like the 'real' constituents (un-named and only counted by him) who have been petitioning him over the years to have a CPZ (actually, I guess raising issues about parking getting worse, the CPZ soluton being rather more his own suggestion).

Maybe the businesses that didn't want a CPZ in Melbourne also didn't want the existing parking controls either (not questioned in the survey) - to suggest that they both want these and don't want a CPZ (and are thus selfish 'having their cake' people) is a calumny - but quite typical of his attempts to smear opponents (incomers, commuters, selfish, not local (i.e. in just those streets petitioned) and so on).

Despite his protestations about following the will of the people he only ever makes one case, and that is only made by some desparate spinning, now, of quite clear consultation feedback.

For a Liberal Democrat his position seems neither liberal, and certainly not democratic.

[BrandNewGuy]

James Barber Wrote:

> People who have asked for controlled parking also

> care about East Dulwich

Really? How do you know? Did you ask them? They might do or they might not - produce the evidence.

> They just have

> different perspectives on what the problems of

> East Dulwich are.

Or possibly what the problems outside their house is... Possibly not a different perspective on East Dulwich as a whole, unless you asked them. Did you ask them? They might do or they might not - produce the evidence.

Throughout this CPZ "consultation", I've been prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to accusations of bias, manipulation of figures and spin, but you've given us precious little evidence to suggest that you're anything other than pro-CPZ, regardless of public feeling on the issue. Shame on you.

[buddug]

James wrote: " Three of those businesses responded to the consultation that they didn't want any controlled parking.

That feels to me like asking to have your cake and eat it."

You really do hate local businesses don't you James. I suppose they're not "aspirational" enough for you [see his Waitrose thread]. Maybe local businesses are simply asking to be given a fair chance to trade without hindrance. And anyway, it sounds to me like you're doing your usual "interpreting" of consultation answers - did they really respond by saying they didn't want "any" controlled parking or is that your word and they simply meant they didn't want a controlled parking zone?

And as to "I'm afraid Southwark has never nuanced its consultations asking people how long they've lived or worked in an area and factoring that into any recommendations" - what on God's earth does it matter how long people have lived or worked here?!!? Do you think that should also be applied to voting in council elections - that people's vote should be discounted or not taken seriously if they have only lived here for three years, rather than say 12? Or for that matter, in the General Election? This is getting bonkers. You have a very warped idea of what a democracy is what with your flagrant dismissal of what are clearly the views of the majority, classifying local businesses - who were actually consulted, as was right and proper - as "commuters" and therefore irrelevant, and now this time-scale thing.

[Siduhe]

As I said at the beginning of this thread - I'm not going to be heavily affected by the CPZ decision one way or the other - so am not commenting on whether it is a good/bad thing.

As I said earlier in the thread, I've always had serious questions about the way Southwark went about this consultation - it clearly seemed (at least to me, and I read a lot of this sort of thing as part of my working life) a) designed to promote a specific outcome over and above other possible outcomes and b) to highlight advantages only of a CPZ and not any potential disadvantages such as loss of parking spaces. In my view, it simply did not comply with Southwark's own stated requirement that any public communication must be "objective, balanced, informative and accurate". Lots of people (including James Barber) spent a lot of time teasing out all the relevant information so that people on this forum could make an informed choice. Not something that was offered to those people who don't read the forum.

However, what appears to be going on now is quite astounding. In particular, the attempt to reclassify certain respondents as "commuters", apparently in order to assert that in certain streets there was a vote in favour of a CPZ. Those respondents were consulted on the basis of the Councils own design for the consultation, and their views should be taken into account.

One of the legal requirements for any outcome from a consultation is that "d) the product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account in finalising any proposals" (emphasis added). Any outcome which conspicuously ignores the clear views expressed by a substantial majority of respondents is unlikely to meet this requirement in my view. No-one involved in this from the local government side is coming out well from these latest developments.

[Hare]

For information:

The Breakfast Show, Friday 6th January 2010

@1:13:45 - Part 1 Giles Sirett, local resident, interviewed by Gaby Logan

@1:18:07 - Part 2 Cllr Barrie Hargrove, Southwark Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment interviewed by Paul Ross

Transcript begins at 1:18:07

Paul Ross (PR): Well, listening to that was Barrie Hargrove, Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment at Southwark Council. Good morning Barrie.

Barrie Hargrove (BH): Good morning.

PR: So, thousands of signatures, people don?t like this, 70% of people say no, so why aren?t you listening?

BH: We are listening, er.. no.. no final decision has been made yet on whether to introduce a CPZ. All we?re doing is.. is.. i.. bringing the results of.. of.. the consultation to local people and out of that the r.. results of those.. that consultation we?re giving them a number of options.

PR: Surely though, if they?re saying no thank you, we like the status quo, that?s the only option they want?

BH: Well the.. um.. there are a number of people that said no thank you but there?s also a substantial number of people that said yes, we do want a CPZ and er we have looked at this carefully and we?ve come up with a number of different options that th.. er.. people might want to.. to go for.

PR: Such as what? I mean, is this two streets [unclear; Hargrove interrupts)?

BH: Yeah, yeah, there are two streets?..

PR: Is that the thin end of the wedge, as Giles was kind of implying?

BH: Ummm.. I don?t think we?re looking at that in quite that way, we?re looking at responding to a concern that people have .. there clearly is a .. there clearly is a problem with commuter parking and I think Giles is very dismissive when he says there?s only a.. a few people in Derwent Grove and Tintagel Crescent that.. that.. that.. that w.. that want a CPZ

PR: Well surely you can?t argue with the figures. I mean, you must know how many people responded.

BH: Well .. no..

PR: He said one in four overall wanted it, that still means three quarters didn?t, and in a democracy that means it shouldn?t happen, surely?

BH: Er.. er.. I d.. don?t think that the process is er.. is a case of whether people you know, th.. the numbers and exact numbers.. it?s a bit more of a sophisticated process than that.. it?s basically, we?ve got CPZs right across our borough and we.. we give residents the opportunity to.. to respond to a consultation and then what we?ll do is.. is come up with er.. er.. s.. some outcomes out of that and give them the chance to have further say before we.. before we make a decision.

PR: And what?s the timescale on this, by the way, what?s the next move?

BH: Yeah, er, we?ve got two Community Councils coming up in January where people are invited to come along and I?d urge people to come along to give their views and then at the end of January, beginning of February, we?ll make a final decision.

PR: Thank you very much for joining us this morning, that was Barrie Hargrove, Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment at Southwark Council. We also heard from Giles Sirett, a local resident, local to East Dulwich, who objects to any plans to introduce controlled parking zones inside or in streets, the 22 streets around where he lives.

Ends

You can hear the whole interview on this link for the next six days.

[BrandNewGuy]

Hare Wrote:

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

> BH: Well the.. um.. there are a number of people

> that said no thank you but there?s also a

> substantial number of people that said yes, we do

> want a CPZ and er we have looked at this carefully

> and we?ve come up with a number of different

> options that th.. er.. people might want to.. to

> go for.

Many thanks, Hare, for posting this. Total spin and bull***t from Southwark. No credibility whatsoever. Do we really expect Barrie Hargrove not to introduce a CPZ? Email him at [email protected] to let him know what we think - but please resist the strong temptation to use intemperate language ;-)

[buddug]

Fantastic gsirett! Well done.

Hargrove, honestly. He even did a 'James Barber' when he said (or spluttered): "There are a number (70%) of people that said no thank you but there?s also a substantial number (24%) of people that said yes".

Er, shouldn't that be the other way round, Barrie? You and James are beginning to sound like something out of communist russia.

[gsirett]

I'd really hoped that Paul Ross would have given me the chance to speak to Cllr Hargrove on air so I could cut through his diabolical spin.

Cllr Hargrove has shown his colours prevoiusly: when highlighted that most people in the area didn't know about the consultation , so could he extend it for a couple of weeks (which was request by another councillor), he refused.

Funny , I would have thought he's relish the chance of getting more response to his consultation ?

Here is the scary bit....

This man has single-handed executive power of decision making on this issue. He decides, on his own, whether we get a CPZ. It doesn't go to a vote, a comittee, it's just him. This is a man who tells all of London that the outcome after a consultation is "more sophisticated" than the 70% who said no. REALLY BARRIE, REALLY ? Let us all in to your sophisticated process then. Tell all.

Ask yourselves: do you trust him to make an impartial decsion, not influended by poilital agenda or party pressue ?

If your answer is anything but 100% yes, then you MUST attend the Community Council meetings. The only chance we have of stopping this is at these meetings and only if the councillors make strong recommendations to Barrie Hargrove not to proceed). One of those Councillors (James Barber) seems intent on not changing his mind, whatever we all say, so we MUST show our feelings in person

So far, Southwark have ignored 2000 signitures, 70% of respondents to their own consultation and 20 out of the 22 streets consulted.

So, don?t leave it to others. Get to those meetings and please make sure as many people in our community as possible are aware of this situation

[first mate]

South Lndon Press online seem to be of the view that James Barber, for one, HAS already made his mind up:

"Despite the concerns raised, the extra parking controls have the backing of East Dulwich Lib Dem opposition councillor James Barber.

He said in an online forum discussion: ?In my mind it?s a decision made for the people who live in the streets where the CPZ is proposed, because they are the ones who will have to pay for a parking permit and they are the ones who complain about people parking on their street.?

[Loz]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Loz,

> From memory business permits for CPZ are over ?400 pa. Which reduces the demand for them

> significantly but obviously runs the risk of parking elsewhere.

James, the point remains that the 'commuters' that this CPZ is supposed to get rid of, will actually be allowed to purchase parking permits!

[buddug]

One for James and Barrie: Don't know if this has already been posted aeons ago, but it's from 2008 government guidelines on consultations regarding introduction of parking changes, section 5.2 (my underlinings):

"The Secretary of State expects local authorities considering major changes to their parking policies to consult fully with stakeholders. As a minimum, local authorities should consult the following groups:

? those involved in the implementation and operation of parking, including the police, neighbouring local authorities, the DVLA and the Traffic Enforcement Centre;

? wider stakeholders with an interest in parking, including businesses, motoring groups and representative organisations; and

? those who will be affected, including residents, motorists and the general public. Authorities should include socially excluded groups.

[davidh]

this guy hargrove is even more extraordinary than barber. presumably they were both quite happy to be elected by a majority. good enough for them, but apparently not good enough for us. we must, er um..I..I.. erm (to quote hargrove) let them decide for us by these obviously highly sophisticated voices in their heads. well, stuff that! and them too!

[trizza]

Gsirett - stand at the next council elections!

[garnwba]

After gsirett (i think) posted a warning note about how Barnet were all complaining about their CPZ and how the rates had increased, i emailed the main committee memeber to ask: despite your clear problems, would you prefer to keep the CPZ or go back to not having one?.. and they replied:

"The answer to your question is that in the main we have been happy with the parking restrictions as we would not be able to park at all without it as we live near an underground station. However, we found it sufficient when it was in force for one hour daily to stop commuters. That way, we did not have to pay the exorbitant price of visitor vouchers six days a week (?4 for any length of time).

For all those belating on that is doesn't work......Just saying.......