E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[Bobby P]

Please, those of you (the majority it seems) against the CPZ, do fill out the online survey, or no one will know of your opposition and the CPZ will definitely go ahead.

But PLEASE be careful when filling it in, as the Council has deliberately set a bear-trap which some (see calculus above) have fallen into. It's hardly their fault - but there's a question on the survey about whether you want a 10-12 or a full day restriction. There's NO option to say neither, and the way it's laid out seems to force you to tick one box or another. PLEASE don't tick either box if you don't want a CPZ, or your vote will be counted "FOR". Very sneaky, highly underhand, and like this whole survey, thoroughly undemocratic, but there you have it.

calculus, you could perhaps email the Council and individual Councillor addresses given and complain that you meant to vote "No", I'd suggest. I fear there will be many more who have been tricked into doing what you did.

[Chener Books]

> Very sneaky, highly underhand, and like this whole survey, thoroughly undemocratic, but there you have it.

And illegal?

John K

[Peckhampam]

The preferred option does come after the question of whether or not you want CPZ. So if this consultation is being done fairly it shouldn't count as a yes. I have gone on line and it is a required field and wont let you continue without ticking one or the other so if you want to leave it blank to register protest you would need to use the paper consutation document.

[Bobby P]

I left mine blank and was able to continue to the next question somehow. Maybe varies based on browser.

Anyhow, one certainly shouldn't tick either box if against!

[Bobby P]

Yes, John, possibly illegal, but they would probably argue that they WON'T count it, if the person has ticked "no" on the previous question, so it would be hard to prove. However, they wouldn't have put it in in this way if they didn't have intent to use it. It's no accident, that's for sure.

[Penguin68]

James in an earlier post in response to one of mine raised the xenophobic ticket - am I living in the CPZ to justify my postings against it, or am I some sort of interloping foreigner?

Answer James - no, I don't live in the CPZ zone (don't let's say 'proposed', it's clearly a done deal) neither do I live in immediately adjacent streets, although I have friends in both whom I visit. However I (1) do live in ED (and have done for 23 years) and (2) do have knowledge of the impact of creeping CPZs on the amenities and 'pleasure to live in quotient' of an area. Actually, as I have also said in other posts, with off-street parking for 3 cars in ED my house value will rise in the face of creeping CPZs, so I would probably be a fiscal gainer from this.

One thing that has not been mentioned is parking zoning - set by many councils at a small area, which you are encouraged to think means that you are competing with fewer cars for spaces; but the moment the 'car per dwelling' quota goes above 1 (as it has done in much of ED, even without multiple occupancy), it means that there will always potentially be more cars than spaces in your street, - if you then have to park somewhere when there are no spaces in your zone you will have to park outside the whole CPZ (which for may will be much further away than the 'walking two streets' complaints we have been having re the introduction of a CPZ).

There is nthing more depressing than to watch the early morning walk-and-hunt as car owners track around to find somewhere 'legal' for their car to park, if they've chosen an adjacent zone to theirs to park in at night to avoid a long 'come and mug me' walk back to their house from somewhere legal late at night. I've done it in the distant past, it's a nightmare.

It's not far to walk from the estates where the muggers live to get to the rich pickings the CPZ will offer them soon, which will be another contribution to the redistribution of wealth so dear to the hearts of some of our councillors.

If zones aren't being set up now, remember that once the thing is there the council will change the rules without feeling any need to consult with anyone.

Of course, the council may well decide to ration you to one permit per household, so 2 or more car families will no longer be welcome in ED. And don't tell me that we can all use public transport - yesterday the whole Victoria and Circle lines were out of use, as was much of the District, the DLR etc. etc. Bus routes were disrupted by about 12 separate events across the centre of town. At weekends (when you might want to travel out for fun, not work) you don't use public transport to do it - unless your idea of fun is travelling rather than getting there.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

'That' question follows the word If. I assumed that wasn't a foregone conclusion. If it is, I'd like the chance to change my response too.

@James Barber

You said it would become a problem with increased number of house fronts being paved over. Surely dropped kerbs are subject to planning permission from the Council at which point it would be easy for permission to be denied.

[bugsbgone]

Penguin for mayor.

The issue of muggings is a very moot point, and should be thrown into the mixer that is this very heated debate.

[bonaome]

Does anyone know, for certain, if the council has any legal obligation to present an unbiased argument in the consultation document?

[Siduhe]

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

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

> @James Barber

> You said it would become a problem with increased

> number of house fronts being paved over. Surely

> dropped kerbs are subject to planning permission

> from the Council at which point it would be easy

> for permission to be denied.

I have no idea what Southwark's policy will be on dropped kerbs in any CPZ, but about three years ago a friend of mine applied to drop his kerb in a different London borough, shortly after the introduction of allocated parking bays in his road (i.e. free parking but only in defined bays which cut down the amount of parking in his road by about 20%).

The suggested agreement/conditions to his planning application being approved was a payment to the Council of over ?1,400 towards "road safety measures and streetscape measures in the area". He apppealed and the amount was reduced to around ?500 plus the cost of the works.

[Penguin68]

Ah, another nice little earner then... maybe the Coalition hasn't done any favours by freezing council tax, it looks like the ED CPZ-ers will be picking up all the slack. Hey ho. It's the Arthur Daley school of local government - but then, isn't it always? (but without the charm, of course).

[garnwba]

Penguin68 did you honestly just write this utter disgusting garbage?

"It's not far to walk from the estates where the muggers live to get to the rich pickings the CPZ will offer them soon"

[Saila]

Everthorpe Road doesn't even feature on the drop down menu of Southwark council's feedback form

yet it's bang in the middle of the CPZ section (but not incl in it of course) .... Oglander gets a mention

[emmaailes]

Hi all,

My name is Emma, and I am a reporter at the Southwark News.

We are running a story in the Dulwich and Herne Hill edition of the paper this week about the proposed East Dulwich CPZ and objections against it.

I am very keen to hear from people who have strong feelings on the topic - please do contact me on 0207 231 5258 or [email protected].

I'm working to a deadline of tomorrow 3pm. I look forward to hearing from some of you...

Many thanks,

Emma

[Andrew1011]

Hi Emma,

Are you just looking for people who are against for the Southwark News article, or will it also cover arguments from those living in the proposed area and elsewhere who like the idea of some kind of CPZ? You know, in the interests of balanced journalism.

[emmaailes]

Hi Andrew,

Looking to hear from people both for and against the proposal.

Thanks,

Emma

[LostThePlot]

Hi,

Just found this after being away from the Forum for a while.

As someone JUST outside the propsed Zone I can see the cars being put in our street, whcih is annoying, and I'll be making my point known, BUT the one thing that did cause my eyebrows to raise is the fact that alternative fuel vehicle gets a 75% discount on the parking fee along with motorcycles.

Bikes I get, they are a space efficient form of motoring, but just 'cos a car runs on electric makes not one jot of a difference to it's size! And of course when we are parked up we're all zero emissions!

A totally clueless view on this I think.

LTP

[Cheese Board]

I've just put in my '5 pence' worth in the questionnaire wholly rejecting the CPZ.

[bonaome]

There will be two parking exhibitions where we will have the opportunity to discuss the proposed scheme with the

parking projects team.

- Saturday 5 November 2011, 10am-2pm

- Wednesday 9 November 2011, 4pm-8pm

Both sessions are at Grove Vale Library.

As much as I'd love to, I cannot make the Saturday session, but I'll do everything I can to go to the session on 9th.

[first mate]

I can't believe this is still being pushed. Living in the area proposed I must point out that we've rejected it again and again. Nobody I know of believes it works and none of us want to pay for it. Life is getting too expensive without this on top of it all.

Of course Southwark will do everything they can to push it through because it is a revenue source, pure and simple. It is disgusting and devious.

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

It's not still being pushed. It's still being demanded by many residents but clearly not by all residents.

The last time a formal council consultation took place was around 9 years ago.

[Ris2011]

As noted on my previous post we are collecting signatures from the surrounding roads of the CPZ to show Southwark that many people in East Dulwich object to this proposal. Thus far i have had volunteers (including myself) to go around the following roads:

hinckley

gowlett

keston

Nutfield

Archdale

Frogley

Northcross

Oglander Road

If you live on a street affected and want to stop southwark getting this proposal through please PM me and i will send you the template.

Thanks

[James Barber]

Hi Ris2011,

It is key that people respond to the consultation.

If collecting signatures please ensure you have the full address and printed name to ensure it carries any weight. This allows officers if they choose to double check against the electoral roll. I wouldn't want lots of effort against the proposals to be wasted.

[karter]

People, if you are for or against this then make your views known by going online and also emailing the councillors, don't just do it on here and don't forget to include your name and address otherwise your input may not count. The links have been posted on this thread by our good community friends. If you can go down to Grove Vale library on the open days then do so too. James Barber, as you have noticed most people on here are against the CPZ proposal. Hope that is sinking in, if this goes ahead i wonder how your reputation will look afterwards.

[Ris2011]

Hi James

Thank you for your response, we are only collecting signature because a lot of people are unaware that southwark are trying to get a controlled parking zone. I wish southwark council would consult all residents that would be effected.

Rid