E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[Otta]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> But that still means that only 26.6 % of people on

> Derwent expressed a positive response....that's

> hardly the majority of people living there is it?

As with any vote, those who don't bother voting don't deserve to be taken in to account. They had their chance to change the numbers.

[Huguenot]

"Only if CPZ permit holders are banned from parking in other residential streets. Why should we share with you if you won't share with us?"

Absolutely Loz, I knew you were in favour of CPZs when it gives you an advantage ;-)

[fredricketts]

Gsirett wrote: "Personally, I'm feeling quite bullied by Southwark Council over controlled parking."

Nail. On. Head.

Is this not the case, with all Councils and Government? They say one thing to get the power, and then do the opposite.

[peterstorm1985]

James Barber Wrote:

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

>

> If Southwark were to allow partial notices it

> would be legally required to ensure balance.

>

Mmmm, not a lot of balance in the documentation advising of the proposed CPZ though was there.

[fazer71]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> But that still means that only 26.6 % of people on

> Derwent expressed a positive response....that's

> hardly the majority of people living there is it?

2 to 1 voted in favour.

So of those who voted

66.6* % vote in favour.

[milk76]

Two thirds of Derwent are in favour.

The issue was also big enough on the street that twice as many people voted as was the average in the consultation.

That is clear democracy.

Yes to CPZ on Derwent PLEASE.

Make it a trial peroid if there is concern.

[gsirett]

From memory it was 18 people on derwent grove who voted to have a cpz. A cpz tha will cause knock-on effects to a much wider set of people.....

Will southwark listen to that wider set in 12 months time? Not a f@?kin hope in hell.

Be under no illusion, a derwent only cpz will:

A. Reduce available spaces to you

B. force many people to park in adjoining roads

C. Not improve the quality of life as you expect

Its taken 2000 signitures and a 70% vote against and STILL they are trying to push this through ( of course nothing to do with revenue ;-) )

How much of a chance do you think you'd stand of getting a failed cpz taken out?

You'd have to get Peter string fellow involved to get southwark to do that

[milk76]

Two thirds of Derwent want this.

If you spent any time on this street you would see that it is hell caused by people who park here first thing and leave in the evening. They will be gone. That simple.

The council should respect that clear democratic fact.

[easytiger]

milk76 Wrote:

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

> Two thirds of Derwent want this.

>

> If you spent any time on this street you would see

> that it is hell caused by people who park here

> first thing and leave in the evening. They will be

> gone. That simple.

>

> The council should respect that clear democratic

> fact.

The council did not consult only on derwent rd, they consulted on a wide area. The results are in and the majority voted against. If you want CPZ on your rd then ask James barber to get a consultation done on your road only.

[fazer71]

Can someone post a link to the consultation results pls...?

[BrandNewGuy]

milk76 Wrote:

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

> Two thirds of Derwent want this.

>

> If you spent any time on this street you would see

> that it is hell caused by people who park here

> first thing and leave in the evening. They will be

> gone.

Gone where? Oh yes - somewhere else that you don't give a stuff about. That's not democractic, that's selfishness pure and simple.

[easytiger]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

> Can someone post a link to the consultation

> results pls...?

Fazer/James, you are having a friggin laff, you have been all pro CPZ recommending it being installed all over the city yet you have not even seen the results on this one.

HAH!

[fazer71]

easytiger Wrote:

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

> fazer71 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Can someone post a link to the consultation

> > results pls...?

>

> Fazer/James, you are having a friggin laff, you

> have been all pro CPZ recommending it being

> installed all over the city yet you have not even

> seen the results on this one.

>

> HAH!

I've seen what the results are I just wanted a link to the results.

Are You some kind of T"??T ?

The same kind of T?!"!"? who lives in lala land... whre the CPZ is concerned.

[Otta]

Has anyone here ever worked for a local authority during a restructuring, when they have a consultation period with staff?

If you have, you should be well aware that a consultation is a hoop the council have to be seen to jump through, before doing exactly what they'd planned to do in the first place.

Sad but true I'm afraid.

[milk76]

He is probably the kind of person who is putting up posters saying that if you love East Dulwich you will oppose a CPZ.

Also that it will drop your house price and close all the shops down.

But it is the pro CPZ posters who are spinning things!

[gsirett]

milk76 Wrote:

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

> He is probably the kind of person who is putting

> up posters saying that if you love East Dulwich

> you will oppose a CPZ.

>

> Also that it will drop your house price and close

> all the shops down.

>

> But it is the pro CPZ posters who are spinning

> things!

The posters are being put up by the local business association. They may saound quite dramatic, but every single fact on those posters is FACT

[fazer71]

All the local business association cares about is

That they and their staff can park their cars 5 seconds walk from their work??

They couldn?t give a toss about residents or customers.

And that is a FACT !

[peckhamboy]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

> All I care about is

>

>

> That I can park my cars 5

> seconds walk from my front door??

>

> I couldn?t give a toss about other residents.

>

> And that is a FACT

There you go Fazer - i fixed your message for you :))

[gsirett]

milk76 Wrote:

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

> Loz

>

> Yes absolutely. Ban me from parking on all other

> residential streets for one hour, at lunchtime,

> Monday to Friday. That works just fine. No

> commuters parking all day and residents will still

> be able to use their cas to drop off the kids and

> get the heavy loads of shopping and park back near

> their own front doors.

>

> Derwent has overwhelmingly clearly voted for this

> on it.

Milk

From memory, the consultation study reckoned that there were about 100 commuters using the area. This was based on cars that are not here overnight. There has been no analysis of how many of those are "rail commuters" vs hospital workers/school teachers/ GM's hairdressers/visitors/ chemist shop workers, etc

A one Road CPZ will NOT stop these people driving to East Dulwich. It will stop them parking on Derwent Grove, granted, but they will simply use other close residential streets. My initial opposision to the original (consulted on) design was that it was too small to stop these type or parkers. A 1 or 3 Road affair would be even worse

Derwent Grove has proably got the highset parking density in the area. Why is this? - is it becuase it particularly atttracts commuters? I think not. I think its becuase Derwent Grove has simply got more people living per metre of kerb than most other roads in the area.

Have you considered, or even asked Southwark council, the actual proposed number of bays on Derwent Grove? The orginal (consulted on) scheme would have given about 100 fewer spaces AFTER the commuters have gone. So, presuming that Derwent was 1/20th of that, that'll be 5 fewer spaces on the Road AFTER your 2.5 commuters have gone.

I think Parking will NOT be easier for you. I think it will also cost you ?125 (to rise well above inflation)

What I KNOW will happen is that Elsie, Melbourne, EDG, Glengarry, Trossachs, Tarbet will all have to soak any overspill from Derwent. These Roads are already heavily parked up (your not the only ones, try parking on Tarbet during the week). They will get worse.

So, what to do?

The concept of a trial of some sort is good. We're all arguing over historic examples & consultation data whereas a trial would give us a chance to really see. And if that had been propsoed to me 3 months ago, I genuinly would have said "good idea"

But the way that Southwark have shamelessly promoted a CPZ, the heavily biased documentation, and their clear attempt to do anything they can to get in "CPZ wedge" in leaves me under no doubt that it would only be a trial in name.

Times are tough for local authorities: they need to raise revnue. Southwark make good money out of permits and related CPZ fines (I forget the exact number, but there is a multi-million pound surplus made every year) . They use that money to offest costs that would normally be covered by council tax.

Just how easy do you think it would be to get that failed trial removed? After they've got their "mandate", after the money has been spent doing the formal consutlation, after the roads have been remarked, after the meters have been installed, after the wardens have been employed?

I suppose you could always write to your local councillor

[milk76]

Lunchtime CPZ will

1. Ruin local businesses

2. Reduce house prices

3. Destroy the local community

Those are your facts are they Gsirett

What a joke. Spin kings!

[gsirett]

Listn to what SSBA (the traders association) have ot say on Tuesday.......I know those points do sound dramatic but they are based on reaserch from the Chamber of Commerce. It is EXACTLY what has happened in other areas.

[easytiger]

milk76 Wrote:

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

> He is probably the kind of person who is putting

> up posters saying that if you love East Dulwich

> you will oppose a CPZ.

>

> Also that it will drop your house price and close

> all the shops down.

>

> But it is the pro CPZ posters who are spinning

> things!

Now who is spinning things? You are, a resident on derwent rd. The majority of RESIDENTS say NO to this cpz, whether you like it or not. Do your own consultation.

Residents and SSBA have been putting up posters that you can find in windows, on lamp posts and community notice boards (not any more because Fazer has taken them down).

SSBA care for their customers and their community and the residents have, in a majority said no to this cpz.

Some residents also care for their community. Milk, you do not want the school staff parking in front of your house do you? Tell them to carry their gear on the bus then will you?

[milk76]

So Gsirett you are in favour of a trail CPZ as long as you have absolute reassurance that it will be removed if it fails. That is excellent EXCELLENT news.

The proposals as i understand it are five;

1. No CPZ

2. No CPZ, but make minor changes to roads,lines, removing unused bays, etc to make everybodys life easier

3. Experimental one hour CPZ in Derwent Grove only (62% of residents in favour)

4. Experimental one hour CPZ in Derwent, Elsie, Jarvis, Melbourn, Oxonian,Tintagel, Zenoria (54% of residents in favour)

5. Experimental one hour CPZ in Derwent, Elsie, Tintagel (57% of residents in favour)

So options three four and five would all be acceptable on a strict trial basis and have the backing of the majority of residents living on those streets (see numbers in brackets).

[Otta]

Of it's really likely to reduce house prices, bring it on!!!

[gsirett]

milk76 Wrote:

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

> So Gsirett you are in favour of a trail CPZ as

> long as you have absolute reassurance that it will

> be removed if it fails. That is excellent

> EXCELLENT news.

>

> The proposals as i understand it are five;

>

> 1. No CPZ

> 2. No CPZ, but make minor changes to roads,lines,

> removing unused bays, etc to make everybodys life

> easier

> 3. Experimental one hour CPZ in Derwent Grove only

> (62% of residents in favour)

> 4. Experimental one hour CPZ in Derwent, Elsie,

> Jarvis, Melbourn, Oxonian,Tintagel, Zenoria (54%

> of residents in favour)

> 5. Experimental one hour CPZ in Derwent, Elsie,

> Tintagel (57% of residents in favour)

>

> So options three four and five would all be

> acceptable on a strict trial basis and have the

> backing of the majority of residents living on

> those streets (see numbers in brackets).

No I would not. Absolutely. Categorically.

Why? Because you're just trying to work your minority view in, knowing full well that any assurances given will be worthless from southwark.

There was a point where ( for the consulted on scheme) I would have accepted a trial. But not now: I know you'll be bleating about having to walk 100m when all the other roads are suffering

NOBODY has been consulted on a 1/3/5 road cpz

One has NEVER been done before