E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[mastershake]

Get yourself over in the Ruskin Park direction where the day after the introduction of the CPZ there (2009: 12-2pm restrictions) all the commuter traffic shifted over into Southwark, e.g. Red Post Hill and further towards Herne Hill Station on the Lambeth side.

indicating that this supposedly mythical commuter traffic does, actually, exist...

[fazer71]

Unless anyone can think of a better solution than the 1 hr Cpz for clearing the streets of cars

??? someone (objectors) need to Magic up a better solution ........ ??

There isn't one .....

IMO may as well Make the whole of London a 1hr CPZ

I see no Practical Ideas or alternative options from any of the objectors Just moan moan moan... and it'll move the cars elsewhere ( which is exactly the idea ) !

[monica]

As a proud member of the East Dulwich community, I have been reading this thread, as and when I log on to the forum. This reminds me of the David and Goliath story, apologies If I am repeating, any of the other posters comments. However as a community, and we have built an amazing community, we (David) need to come together and fight, Goliath (Southwark council) Clearly there will always be a minority of the community who will want the CPZ, not surprisingly the minority live within the CPZ zone. However we live in a democratic society, and we have the freedom to have our opinions and ensure our opinions are heard. The overwhelming evidence, that the CPZ is not wanted or warranted by the ED community, and the ongoing subjective comments by James Barber leaves me with the desire to go to both meetings and make sure my voice and opinions are heard.

I lived in a CPZ area, for 8 years, South Norwood. Now Croydon council who introduced the CPZ are trying to regenerate the South Norwood area, who's economy depleted not long after the CPZ was introduced. False economy springs to mind.

So lets make sure our voices are heard at these meetings, details of the meetings can be found in the East Dulwich community notice boards, at East Dulwich Station and Norhcross Rd.

By the way has anyone contacted South London press and Southwark news?

Edited to correct typo.

[tiddles]

fazer71 the thing is, you won't get your guaranteed parking. look at the streets involved - lots of divided houses into two properties + 2 cars. you are just going to have to fork out ?100 and upwards to chase your neighbours for the limited parking. (all the white lines and extended yellow lines will mean fewer spaces) and quids in for all the traffic wardens who will be patrolling your streets looking for minor parking infringements, plus of course those extra ?? for any chaps who come to work at your place......

the CPZ will ripple thro ED and limit general shopping parking til the only shops left on our high street are the chains who can subsidise the higher rents and drop in impulse shopping (oh damn, cannot find a space, no change for the machine - stuff it I will go to bromley) - have you visited northcote road??? well just imagine that could all be yours...... oh goody and **** you to all the independent traders who have been here for years before the 'gentrification'. Altho James seems to think he is some champion of long time residents - I have 18 years under my belt so I think I am entitled, under his terms, to have my say!

rant over.....

[Bobby P]

MEETING TIMES TODAY!!!!

The all-important community meeting times reposted.

First is TODAY - the 10th January. Please if you have a strong view against the CPZ, you really need to attend and make this view heard. This meeting (and its sister meeting on 24th) is likely the LAST CHANCE for the Council to hear the strong views of the majority before they make their decision about putting in the CPZ.

So...

7pm - 10th January Camberwell Community Council - Jessie Duffett Hall, 92 - 94 Wyndham Road, London SE5 0UB.

Also, don't forget the other vital meeting to attend....

7pm 24 January Dulwich Community Council - St Barnabas Church 40 Calton Avenue SE21 7DG

[buddug]

I've got room for three in my car. Tel: 0208 299 3330.

[fazer71]

tiddles Wrote:

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

> fazer71 the thing is, you won't get your

> guaranteed parking. look at the streets involved -

> lots of divided houses into two properties + 2

> cars. you are just going to have to fork out ?100

> and upwards to chase your neighbours for the

> limited parking. (all the white lines and extended

> yellow lines will mean fewer spaces) and quids in

> for all the traffic wardens who will be patrolling

> your streets looking for minor parking

> infringements, plus of course those extra ?? for

> any chaps who come to work at your place......

The CPZ is inevitable at some stage this century may as well get it done right!

Argue the points you mention above to stop any restrictions on available meterage of curb side parking through extended yellow lines etc.

It would be far better to push for a fair CPZ as it is inevitable rather than waste your efforts fighting against it completely.

It does look like Southwark have unreasonable restricted the available street parking in some areas that is what we should be fighting against ??.

The problem with fighting for a fair quality CPZ is that it?s less sexy than fighting 100% against the CPZ?.

So when you have your meeting think about what will happen after / if it?s introduced and get agreement with Southwark that locals will be able to work with the CPZ implementation staff to see how much parking will be restricted and that it?s fairly implemented.

[easytiger]

Please do not rely on others to attend for you. Members of the chamber of commerce and SSBA shall be there who are against this massively flawed consultation. Councillors should not be allowed to show support towards the CPZ. Barber has said from the outset that he wants CPZ on 3 streets around the station and said he will stand firm on this. More complaints should be made against him and not just on this forum. Don't think he will be at tonights meeting. Barber has lost the respect of many people.

This consultation has been shown to be flawed on the way it has been presented and without transparency. The locals have said no to this CPZ. The leader of the council writes that if a majority is against a CPZ then he will not allow it. He must honor his word.

[fazer71]

Is the meeting about a Flawed Consultation or about the merits of the CPZ ?

[Siduhe]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

> Is the meeting about a Flawed Consultation or

> about the merits of the CPZ ?

In my view, it should be about both. The CPZ doesn't directly affect me - but Southwark's approach to the consultation and (what appears) to be a pre-made decision to pick and choose from the results absolutely does. If people don't stand up and make clear it's unacceptable and not in line with Southwark's obligations, this kind of flawed consultation will happen again - next time on something that does directly affect me and perhaps you. That's what being part of a community should mean IMO - I can't make the meeting tonight but will be there on the 24th.

[first mate]

fazer1,

The purpose is for councillors to give their recommendations and for locals to make their views known, present petitions etc.. Although all of this has already been done at the consultation phase- it does need to be repeated if the majority voice is to be properly taken into account when Councillor Barrie Hargrave reaches his 'key' decision in February.

Essentially it is to ensure that the majority of voices that said no to CPZ at the consultation are properly weighed in decision making. As we know, the definition of majority has been shifted of late to seemingly mean the only two streets in the zone that indicated they want some form of CPZ. In others words, within the zone, the majority said no to CPZ but that is being ignored for now, rendering the consultation pretty meaningless. On the other hand a majority on two streets is trumpeted as a fair result and the basis on which CPZ is still being driven through... In Southwark council parlance sometimes a majority means majority and sometimes it does not.

Southwark have an investment in ensuring that CPZ is always viewed on a street by street basis because they know that is the only way to get CPZ underway. Remember the consultation shows that the majority in the zone are against CPZ. They also know that even if only two streets have CPZ for one hour that the inevitable displacment will, at some point,(they are playing the long game) result in CPZ creep. Once in place permits go up, one hour CPZ is extended. Parameters can change- they have shown that they will use a minority voice to drive through changes.

[fazer71]

On a legal point did they really need to consult ?

Southwark own the roads couldn't they just go ahead and do what they want ?

Is it just political face / game ?

Even the politicians don't know what the laws are and they just play games keeping themselves busy chasing the vote.... rather than doing the right thing ....

I just think Dartford crossing .... ! There is no confidence in the Process ...

Are you all being strung along ?

Probably .....

[gsirett]

We have had a 2 month debate on this forum about the problems & merits of a CPZ in East Dulwich. I am left with the opinion that the scheme proposed by Southwark will have a net negative effect on our area. I don't believe parking will get much easier for people within the zone (fewer spaces), I believe it will get much more difficult for a number of roads outside. It will not stop the people at GM's or the chemist driving to work. "Real" commuters will still be able to park within a 6 minute walk of the station.

It will grow. The people of Roads close to it's boundary will be forced into having one to deal with the displacement. It will quickly be into the Roads around Lordship Lane. CPZ?s work in many parts of the Borough (I owned a business in SE1. CPZ there was essential and worked well), but the scheme suggested for us is flawed and will not work.

The local chamber of commerce are petrified that it will damage trade and alter the face of Lordship Lane forever. It's easy to dismiss this voice (?local traders whinge about anything that affects their business?) but their fears are based on solid research. Mary Portas, the governments "High St Tsar" identifies free parking as the no.1 way to maintain a vibrant high st. The "economy" of LL is sensitive: people will not stop using their cars, they'll just go somewhere where they CAN park. We will loose the small, independent traders that we love (I?m not making this up: I spoke to a few of them last week and their margins are VERY tight)

Of course, there is the underlying issue of too much car use and sustainable transport. We can't carry on like this (unless they hurry up with cold fusion). But, a CPZ in our area will not change this. There will be no fewer cars on the planet if this scheme goes in. There will be no fewer journeys. We'll still use the same amount of fossil fuel.

Southwark council have been devious and extremely sneaky in their approach to this. Southwark DO CPZ's: it is their policy (Southwark planning policy section 5.6 if anybody?s interested). They make a lot of money out of CPZ?s. (ring-fenced so they can only spend it on sweets and chocolate). They just won?t admit it to you that?s all.

And, please people, think long and hard about ?experimental? CPZ?s. If a local authority is prepared to ignore public opinion to this extent BEFORE creating a new cash-cow, how quickly do you think they?ll rip out all those machines once they?ve installed them ? Also think about those ?experimental? parking tickets that you?ll get. Try telling that to the parking tribunal.

But for me, this has now not just become an issue about the CPZ. It has become an issue about local democracy. An issue about a set of people, who have been elected by us, trying to railroad through their own set of policies and ignoring the people who voted for them. A set of people only presenting one side of a case. A set of people skewing information. A set of people making commitments to their voters and then potentially not keeping them.

And, be under no illusion that this is party policy. I?ve spoken personally to a few of our local councillors over the last few weeks and there is 100% correlation between their party colour and how they feel about a CPZ in Dulwich.

I'm afraid, that is an absolute travesty. It can not be allowed. The man responsible for the decision on this went on BBC radio and refused to acknowledge the 70% of people who have said ?no? in the consultation, 2000 people sign petitions, 20/22 Roads say no. Instead, he used his time to go on about ?a lot of people want a CPZ? ..... 2 out of 22 Roads. Even on those two Roads in isolation , a total of 27 people have said ?yes? vs 16 saying no. That?s a mandate of 11 people across Derwent Grove and Tintagel crescent.

It seems these people will ignore their own consultation results , they will ignore petitions, they will ignore the advice of the chamber of commerce. Please, please, please make sure you attend the Community Council meetings personally so they cannot ignore YOU

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

[kford]

For councils, the word 'Experimental', like the word 'temporary' generally means 'permanent'. Like those 'temporary' traffic lights on Forest Hill Road.

[Siduhe]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

> On a legal point did they really need to consult?

Yes, section 138 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (not just limited to health matters as the name suggests) and Chapter 3 of the The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 places a duty on local authorities to involve local representatives when carrying out "any of its functions" by providing information and consulting. There is also statutory guidance about how the duty to involve must be carried out which includes:

Authorities should offer representatives of local persons appropriate opportunities to

have their say about the decisions and services that affect them through consultation.

Some examples of consultation include formal (including mandatory) consultations,

satisfaction surveys, as well as direct dialogue with representatives of local persons,

for example through deliberative panels and focus groups. Consultation needs to

provide genuine opportunities for people to be involved so authorities will want to

draw on widespread evidence of what constitutes good practice in consultation.

> Southwark own the roads couldn't they just go

> ahead and do what they want ?

No, see above.

[fazer71]

All Looks pretty flimsey to me.....

Reading between the lines consult and make a show of it .... then do what you like ....

[first mate]

fazer71,

Eaxctly. There is a lack of trust in the same way you have little if any confidence in the shenanigans to do with your property.

If you can bear to, come along to the CC meetings. It is our futures that are being decided by one man who appears to have a rather slim grasp of what a majority means.

[James Barber]

The agenda and timetable for tonights Camberwell Community Council can be found at:

http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=3882&T=0

Deputations are planned for 7.10pm - one definite deputation about the CPZ consultation report and a second one where theperson hasn't completed the arrangements. If you're that person contact the committee clerk ASAP.

The Camberwell Community Council chair person, second hand, is planning to stick to the agenda which would mean the main CPZ consultation report is timetabled for 8.55-9.05. That seems ambitious to stick to only 10 mins for this topic but the study is quite clear no controlled parking is proposed for the streets within Camberwell Community Council area.

[gsirett]

James Barber Wrote:

> study is quite clear no controlled parking is

> proposed for the streets within Camberwell

> Community Council area.

James, thanks for the information.

I know you have constantly implied that the CPZ is only the busienss of the people within the zone, but there are many, many people who will be impacted by it (not in the zone) who have a right to be represented. With the crazy 1/3 Road scheme, this becomes EVEN more apparent. Lots of people in South Camberwell are potentially now going to be living NEXT to a CPZ

Just so people are fully in the picture: this CPZ is likely to have an effect on those people in the Camberwell Ward Roads, so it is important that people have their say. And it is important that the CC recognises this impact and makes recommednations based upon it. IMO, with people like you are Barry Hargrove pushing this scheme, it is essentail that the COMMUNITY Councils do the RIGHT thing and align themselves with the majority of people they represent in our COMMUNITY.

[edited to say:

sorry if I seem to have jumped on James for simply trying to provide some information. It's just after eating his diet of biased, spun nonsense for the last few weeks, I just can't help it]

[garnwba]

Gsirett - Isn't your stance "people will be leaving next door to the CPZ so they should have their say" a little contradictory when put up against your other argument of "you live next door to the station so you should accept the consequences"

Whilst i do (genuinely) admire your passion for this fight, I?m afraid your constant failure to admit that your No1 argument against is purely that your nice quiet convenient parking street will possibly become a parking nightmare is disappointing.

Stealth tax, poor for community.... blah all bluff scare mongering

You want to park outside your house.... which is exactly the same as the people for the CPZ

[Loz]

garnwba Wrote:

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

> Gsirett - Isn't your stance "people will be

> leaving next door to the CPZ so they should have

> their say" a little contradictory when put up

> against your other argument of "you live next door

> to the station so you should accept the

> consequences"

Not at all, unless you purchased/rented your house before they built the train station.

> You want to park outside your house.... which is exactly the same as the people for the CPZ

You are overlooking the almost certain result of the CPZ will be that no one - inside or outside the CPZ - will be able to park near their house. The number just do not add up.

[gsirett]

garnwba Wrote:

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

> You want to park outside your house.... which is

> exactly the same as the people for the CPZ

got me: spot on, you're right. Not bothered about the impact on our community,businesses or any of my fellow residents at all. What do they matter? As long as my car can sit outside my house, thats all I care about. In fact, I really should ask for a CPZ in my road then. Thats a good idea.

I suppose the other 1825 people all feel the same way?

[fredricketts]

Just out of interest, Southwark Council, has Dulwich down as a Town and not a village.

This is on there site:Draft Dulwich SPG and draft Lordship Lane town centre SPG.

[garnwba]

Loz - the introduction of a CPZ will have a significant reduction in the number of people who choose to park in the station area which is the main reason why so many people living outside it are against it

The whole reduction in parking spaces.... that will have little to no impact when compared to:

No commuters

Residents not wishing to pay

people might not like CPZ but there can be no doubt that in the main they achieve their objectives on the roads they are introduced on.

[gsirett]

garnwba Wrote:

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

> Loz - the introduction of a CPZ will have a

> significant reduction in the number of people who

> choose to park in the station area which is the

> main reason why so many people living outside it

> are against it

>

> The whole reduction in parking spaces.... that

> will have little to no impact when compared to:

>

> No commuters

> Residents not wishing to pay

>

> people might not like CPZ but there can be no

> doubt that in the main they achieve their

> objectives on the roads they are introduced on.

sorry for shouting, but it doesnt seem to go in:

THERE WILL BE A NET REDUCTION IN PARKING AFTER THE COMMUTERS HAVE BEEN REMOVED.

This is in Southwarks own proposal document (although they fail to highlight it). Paul Gellard (officer responsible) stood in GV library and helped me work it out

I'm sure CPZ's can/do deliver their objectives (said earlier, I've seen them work really well) but this design won't. If you can tell me how fewer residents spaces compared with the current number of residents vehicles will imporve the situtation, please do.