E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[StraferJack]

I'm still against the idea of a CPZ and hope it doesn't come to pass, but a couple of points:

1) Despite claiming overwhelming support, the prolific anti-CPZ posters on here are, judging by the content of their posts a) batshit, bonkers, green-biro-writin' mentalists. I would cross the road to avoid them. And b) judging by their numbers on here, they hardly constitute an army. A loud, vocal, pain-in-the-ass minority yes. But a huge majority? Not on these numbers. Everytime of them goes on a long ramble about a mishmash of anecdote and half-facts from public documents I just want to scream "FILIBUSTER!!!!". Because they engage as much as the congressmen who deploy that tactic

2) Any claim about local business supporting the anti-CPZ campaign is both true AND absolutely worthless/meaningless. I remember about 10 years ago most of the same traders were against bus lanes. Claims of Lordship Lane apocalypse were rife. The bus lanes happened. The businesses prospered.

Whichever way the CPZ vote goes, some businesses will fold. Many will struggle. It will be nowt (or near as dammit) to do with local parking restrictions

I didn't vote for James Barber and can't see a reason to do so in the future - he is who he is,a hard-working, sometimes right, sometimes wrong local politician, but who tries harder than most to engage. To think that some people therefore believe they now have the right to speak to him the way they do says everything about them and little about JB.

[easytiger]

Wrong Straferjack. The bus lane proposal was 24 hours both ways ( which would have made a different shopping experience compared to now and many more chains would be in). it was fought and it is as it is now, which works. Part time bus lane in peak hours.

The adjustments on Grove Vale works, giving a 30 minute shopping window.

Camberwell Community council meet 2 weeks ago- The leader of the council and colleagues voted as a majority option 2, No cpz but make adjustments to roads. This clearly should be the step to follow.

[gsirett]

" Any claim about local business supporting the anti-CPZ campaign is both true AND absolutely worthless/meaningless. I remember about 10 years ago most of the same traders were against bus lanes. Claims of Lordship Lane apocalypse were rife. The bus lanes happened. The businesses prospered."

Actually the local traders "whinged" about a permanant LL bus/red route. Nobody listened to them, what harm could it possibly do? A while later, with evidence of dramatically falling sales, a local councillor helped them get the decision reversed ( a local lib

EVerybody thought they were just a load of whinging businesses, But their fears were proved right.

Many of th businesses that we all love run on very tight margins. Nobody has problems parking at sainsburys or bluewater

[Huguenot]

Not necessarily BNG - people only do what's convenient.

If parking near the station isn't practical, the the residents of Scutari Road may not drive to ED station at all.

[Huguenot]

"A while later, with evidence of dramatically falling sales a local councillor helped them get the decision reversed"

I don't think this is entirely true.

Can you provide us with the dates and the figures for when LL was a red route? Can you also provide us with these 'dramatically falling sales' and demonstrate that the two are linked?

No? I thought not ;-)

Just another fabricated claim and scare story from the convenience crew.

[Loz]

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.

Nope, sorry. It should be a complete ban. If Derwent wants to opt out of the idea of 'community parking', then it should be completely.

[Loz]

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.

I would have no problem with that, provided the success/fail criteria are agreed and published beforehand. And agreed not just with the streets within the CPZ, but with streets bordering the zone as well. If there are knock on effects to non-CPZ streets, it must be considered to have failed.

[DJKillaQueen]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

> 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.

But that does not mean that two thirds of all residents on Derwent are in favour as milk76 keeps trying to say. (He truth is that only 26% of residents living on that road have shown support. One could argue that the 60% who did not take part in the consultation abstained by doing so.

[first mate]

Loz, that is an excellent point- if the problem is simply moved on how on earth can it really be termed a solution?

[gm99]

@ first mate

Because Southwark Council views the CPZ impact only in the narrow context of the zone itself.

E.g. from the Lucas Gardens and Southamton Way CPZ report, the 'community impact statement' does not mention displacement, but rather claims

"The implementation and operation of the CPZ contributes to an improved environment through the elimination of on-street commuter parking and the associated reduction of local and borough-wide traffic levels." (para 27)

Not for those of us just outside the CPZ it doesn't.

[Jasmina]

Good request! Please can some one post.

fazer71 Wrote:

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

> Can someone post a link to the consultation

> results pls...?

[Loz]

Hi Jasmina,

You can find it here: http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=25008&ISATT=1&bcsi_scan_6BDE16B5925DEBDF=bsVQNVUpm9OZIYogZOdgZGjO/SsKAAAA/elzIg==&bcsi_scan_filename=mgConvert2PDF.aspx

[fazer71]

easytiger Wrote:

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

> 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).

Oh dear easytiger you?re a complete _ _ _ _

JB took them down, I don?t even know or care where the notice boards are!

Cheers peckhamboy :)>:D<

[fazer71]

The response rate to the consultation was ridiculously low!

I was away working in the Far East looks like many other resident were out there too!

Bonkers how can anyone expect us to get a sensible level of support either way for that kind of response rate.

Totally Bonkers!!!!

Given such a low response rate I don't think anyone can realistically believe it?s suitable as an argument for or against.

It?s nonsense.

[fazer71]

And someone said it cost ?85,000??

With Southwark I?m not surprised.

For that money they should have also had an online system using a couple of codes together with a text system to allow for a simple for or against vote too.

Totally incompetent waste of our tax money!

[fazer71]

Here is a FREE online POLL For the CPZ.

Cost me nothing....

CPZ POLL

[Chener Books]

Council Officers disallowed several Derwent Grove "votes" as they were deemed to be duplicates.

John K

[first mate]

DJKQ,

You make a good point about the terms of the consultation being extremely open to interpretation- allowing for lots of wiggle room. Information about it was also kept very low key and was not easy to find on the Southwark website without a link.

[first mate]

Gsirett,

You know how Southwark would get a trial CPZ removed- by a street by street consultation ;)

You are right, a trial would simply be the council foot in the door, and CPZ permanently.

[Jasmina]

I live on Tintagel and have not been consulted about option 5.

I still dont see a link to the consultation results. You guys may have already seen it and looked but I'd be really grateful if you can re post it.

Thanks

gsirett Wrote:

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

> 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

[intexasatthe moment]

Jasmina - Loz posted the link about 8.30 last night ,it's on the previous page of this thread .

But if you still can't find it ,here it is again

http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=25008&ISATT=1&bcsi_scan_6BDE16B5925DEBDF=bsVQNVUpm9OZIYogZOdgZGjO/SsKAAAA/elzIg==&bcsi_scan_filename=mgConvert2PDF.aspx

[easytiger]

apologies if i copy what i post on the councillors thread, cpz discussion should really be kept here.

Some of you need to go back to school and learn math, don't go to the primary school on Grove Vale as you may not be able to park near it.

This is a flawed consultation, on many levels and Milk you can go pages back and read all about it. I love the way James Barber tried to wriggle his way out of the issue RE ?20000 given by the developer building flats on the garden centre by the station, the money going towards this and any future CPZ. Didn't go down well when this was found out and his excuse was lame.

Once again, this consultation was performed within a zone, where the majority of folks say no thanks.

There is much figure spinning going on here.

The leader of the council and colleagues went through these figures with Paul Gellard and Tim Walker two weeks ago and they voted option 2, no cpz but make improvements in the streets around the station. This should be done.

[fredricketts]

It is important to recognise that the majority of households in Southwark do not have access to a car and

The needs of this majority must also be considered in the allocation of street space

It is important to recognise that the majority of households in Southwark do not have access to a car and the needs of this majority must also be considered in the allocation of street space

Do these politicians live in cuckoo land? What survey has been done to come to this conclusion?

Manipulating the figures again to suite themselves, it?s a great democracy we live in, JUST DO AS YOU ARE TOLD,

These politicians need a Toilet roll permantley around their necks, for the amount of cr*p that comes out of their mouths.

[James Barber]

gsirett Wrote:

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

> Jasmina Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I live on Tintagel Crescent and I'm against the

> > CPZ scheme. My neighbours that I've spoken to

> are

> > also against the scheme. I'm wondering if

> there

> > is anyone on Tintagel or Elsie Road who

> supports

> > this scheme?

>

> You need to speak to councillor barber, he knows

> loads of people who support the scheme. Apparently

Hi grisett,

I think I wrote very early on in this thread before the consultation results that from my colleagues and I experience of knocking on doors - and we asked open non leading question about what people thought about controleld parking - that clear majority on Derwent Grove, majority on Melbourne and 50:50 on Elsie.

In the last 6 weeks I've had 21 initial emails about the CPZ 6 against and 15 in favour. PM messages through this forum roughly 50:50. And about half a dozen CPZ phone calls asking for advice about how to get people responding for or against the proposals.

BUT I've had over 100 other emails about non CPZ subjects over the same period and they typically keep me running at around 100 emails a day of email traffic following casework up etc.

[first mate]

I wonder what people think of Scottish independeance?

Should only the people of Scotland (Derwent Grove) get to vote or should the whole UK (grisett and co) decide on Scottish independence.

Do people think that more than 50% of the whole population should vote for independence of just a majority?

Eitherway, it would be really appreciated if the CPZ thread could stay there.

James you wrote the above on your other thread- but I am transposing as you have asked for the other thread to be kept clear.

It's disingenuous. The consulation 'consulted' with a zone and that zone returned a majority voice against CPZ. If you are now stating that the only valid voices are those on two streets, then why was the consultation not limited to those two street