Controlled parking zone-fees will rise

[TheRoses]

The Council has suffered huge cuts under this government and like all councils is looking to raise income any way they can. The parking permit fee increased by 25% this year and will no doubt increase significantly more beyond the fixed period to 03/13.Whilst many of of the newer residents demanding the CPZ can afford this, for many residents paying for a parking permit will be difficult.

[James Barber]

TheRoses,

I honestly don't think the Labour run council will increase parking permit fees this side of the 2014 local elections.

[TheRoses]

I guess all councillors will be pleased to increase the number of CPZs in the borough because of the increased income. Will having to buy a parking permit be the norm in East Dulwich-one of the disadvantages of gentrification

[James Barber]

Hi TheRoses,

Why on earth do you think Councillors like antagonising people?

The latest CPZ's are confirmed in north Peckham/Camberwell.

I really don't believe any councillor thinks 'ooh let's have a CPZ because any profits will then get spent across all of Southwark'.

Will East Dulwich end up with CPZ's everywhere? I doubt it while so many households don't own cars. But I do hear a lot of people near the station having problems. I also hear from people around Nutfield with parking stress - that appears to e from shop owners/employees/Market traders/estate agents commuting in and parking. And yes the residents the tolerance isn't inexhaustible.

[Pugwash]

Parking anywhere off LL is impossible, when I have my car serviced by Andrew in Shawbury Road, I come down the night before and park it near his garage, thec come down early the next morning to give him the keys

[gsirett]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> TheRoses,

> I honestly don't think the Labour run council will

> increase parking permit fees this side of the 2014

> local elections.

James

You and honest in the same post on this subject?.....the words don?t mix .

I?m sure, over many, issues you are a politician of the highest integrity, but on this subject you have demonstrated blatant campaigning to meet your political agenda and I think such behaviour is shameless. As an elected representative , your careful selection of data, you being complicit in a limited and biased consultation, your constant repetition of the positives (whilst neglecting any negatives) means you have completely lost my resect and that of many others.

Why on earth would I ever believe you when you tell people that charges won't increase

[James Barber]

Hi grisset,

I could play opposition politics as an opposition councillor and say I'm really concerned that the big bad Labour council will increase parking permits by 25% every year as that's what they've just done.

But I really don't believe they will. A 25% increase now was bad enough. But Labour have no plans to review these charges until 2013 and I don't think they'll increase them again this side of the 2014 local elections.

I do find it bizarre that you mis trust me for not trying to play politics on these charges.

as for data. I've been asked questions, found the answers and passed them on. I think it's clear that around 100 commuters/ non residents drive into the area every mon-fri. That controlled parking will cause relief from that if that's what people choose but any controlled parking would cost permit fees and any visitor permit fees with the risk of tickets. People will take different views on the respective balance of these based on their perceptions.

My main concern is maximising respondents so the best possible decision/s are taken.

[gsirett]

Funny that, your main concern so far seems to have been to do everything you can to promote this scheme

Have you finally started listening?

or is it the local political abyss that's winding you in now?

[Zak]

There's only one direction in which pasrking fees will go once a CPZ is installed and that's up! Whether or not it's before 2014 is academic.

Everyone knows that council's are strapped for cash and CPZs are a godsend and a cash cow!

[first mate]

James, if your main concern is really to want to maximise respondents, why is there no proper consultation including the bulk of ED streets? You can't have it both way, if the problem is so bad there will be displacement. You keep suggesting that there is only a need to consult the handful of streets immediately affected while knowing that a much larger area of ED will suffer displacement.

If your main concern is to maximize respondents, why have you and your council colleagues buried the poor excuse for a survey on the council website? Why is the survey so deeply flawed and biased? Can you honestly say that the wording and design of that survey is not loaded?

Your determination to stick to your pro CPZ agenda is utterly transparent- I don't wish to be insulting, but you do appear to have blinkers on with regard to this one issue.

As I have said before, I have now asked loads of local people if they are in favour of CPZ and not one, not one, has said yes.

[buddug]

I'm not surprised at James Barber's stance on this. Oh yes, we all have money to pay for our parking bays, no question. He doesn't even envisage it as another way of squeezing households - and local businesses who would suffer from diminished trade. It was the same when I went to him with the horrific problems I've had over the years having Southwark Council as a freeholder, and his only solution was for me and my upstairs neighbour to buy the freehold. In fact he said it so many times despite my telling him we didn't have that kind of money, that I had to tell him to stop. He believes, or wants to believe, that just because we live in East Dulwich/Peckham borders we're loaded. He has no idea whatsoever of how hard people are finding it to make ends meet in these stricken times, which as a councillor is shocking. He's living in gentrified Waitrose land.

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

I tried influencing the area consulted and asked for many more East Dulwich street to be added - Tell, Matham, Chesterfield, Asbourne, Bassano, Blackwater and all of Melbourne - but as an opposition councillor failed. But I did get a 10-12 option added into the consutlation as I'm concerned all day parking controls would damage local businesses but if a 'lite' version happened businesses would benefit from shoppers beign able to park. I've also helped ensure community councils will review the final report and make recommendatinos to Cllr Barrie Hargrove before he makes his decision and am grateful that he is allowing this to happen.

Hi buddug,

Increasing costs to households that choose to run a car - of course I recognise that would be a consequence if the majority decide they want controlled parking. I remember very clearly hearing from many Holmdene residents about the increasing of charges from ?99.30 to ?125 and the financial pressures this brought for some.

I make no apologies for suggesting to leaseholders that they consider buying the freehold of any property they live in from Southwark. Southwark Council are not great landlords of the 40,000+ tenanted and 10,000+ leasehold properties but are espeically bad where converted victorian houses are concerned. And I've had lots casework of either the council not doing repairs or doing them so badly that the leasehodlers don't have to pay and other tenants/tax payers then have to cover it. A real lose lose situation. Frankly Southwark spends so much being a bad freeholder it should problably give the freeholds away as it would be cheaper for everyone! Legally they can only sell such freeholds to leaseholders.

[gsirett]

WHERE TO SIGN THE PETITION

only a petition stands any chance of stopping this. It needs to be presented by Friday

You can sign our petition to stop the CPZ at all of the following local businesses (they?ve all got copies of the petiotn sheets)

Please, please can as many people try to sign before Thursday, as the petition has to be presented on Friday. So, make sure you stop in for a drink/plant/asprin /newspaper/paintbrush on the way home tonight and SIGN THE PETITION

And please encourage as many people to do the same.

SARP Newsagents (on corner Grove Vale & Melbourne Grove, near station)

The VaLE Pub, Grove Value

Shauns DIY, Grove Value

Dulwich Garden Centre

Mark & Son Newsagent, Grove Vale (Next to Shauns DIY)

Petals (clothes shop), Melbourne Grove

Therapy, Melbourne Grove

Angel Upholstery, Melbourne Grove

Ronnies Supermarket, East Dulwich Grove

Dolphin Dry Cleaners, East Dulwich Grove (corner with Glengarry)

[first mate]

Brilliant. Well done gsirett. Will sign immediately and tell others to do the same.

James,

If you made historical efforts to widen the consultation that suggests that you saw a need to do so and rather contradicts the stance you have taken thus far, that wider consulation was not necessary.

It must by now be clear to you that there is widespread opposition to CPZ and there is also an overwhelming view that the so-called 'consultation' process is deeply flawed.

[first mate]

WHERE TO SIGN THE PETITION

only a petition stands any chance of stopping this. It needs to be presented by Friday

You can sign our petition to stop the CPZ at all of the following local businesses (they?ve all got copies of the petiotn sheets)

Please, please can as many people try to sign before Thursday, as the petition has to be presented on Friday. So, make sure you stop in for a drink/plant/asprin /newspaper/paintbrush on the way home tonight and SIGN THE PETITION

And please encourage as many people to do the same.

SARP Newsagents (on corner Grove Vale & Melbourne Grove, near station)

The VaLE Pub, Grove Value

Shauns DIY, Grove Value

Dulwich Garden Centre

Mark & Son Newsagent, Grove Vale (Next to Shauns DIY)

Petals (clothes shop), Melbourne Grove

Therapy, Melbourne Grove

Angel Upholstery, Melbourne Grove

Ronnies Supermarket, East Dulwich Grove

Dolphin Dry Cleaners, East Dulwich Grove (corner with Glengarry)

[James Barber]

Hi first mate, gsirett,

A petition is not the only way to stop proposals for controlled parking.

Any petition would need to be reasonable so the wording of it would be crucial. It should have the full name and address as well as any signature. I would recommend against asking for email addresses as they might conceivably end up in the public domain.

Ideally you'd ask open questinos of do you want controlled parking yes/no. If yes 8.30-6.30 or 10-12 mon-fri. also whether if a neighbouring street did have controlled parking whether they'd want it. The petitoon could then potentially be intergrated into the overal consultaiton responses maximising its weight.

You also need to ensure these businesses understand the concept of 'lite' controlled parking that mgiht benefit them else they could withdraw the petitions at a late date making it hard for you to recover it so to speak.

[peckhamboy]

James

As I understand it, this is a petition AGAINST the CPZ. I'm not sure why it should need to resemble a consultation in order to have any validity? That kind of defeats the point of a petition. Or do you think that those who live (immediately) outside the proposed CPZ should be trying to carry out a consultation in order to be able to have a say on this? Because, frankly, I have found the time to write to my councillors and complete the consultation to voice my objection. If others living outisde the zone feel equally strongly that they want a CPZ, they are free to do the same but I don't believe that my 'no' vote should be ignored if they can't be bothered or don't exist - which is what you seem to suggest.

[first mate]

James, I'd be concerned about the wording you suggest because say someone answers "no I do not want CPZ in ED" but goes on to answer one of the preference time options (if there were a CPZ would you prefer 8.30-6.30 or or 10-12?) some unscrupulous council types could start including the second answer in percentages of respondents indicating a preference for CPZ at a certain time, thus boosting the appearance of support for CPZ, even though that person has already also ticked the box saying they don't want CPZ. If a person says 'no' why then deal in hypotheticals?

from what others have written it seems that the council is already playing fast and loose with the figures.

Why does a simple, unambiguous statement along the lines of I do not want CPZ in my street, carry so little weight with you?

[Zak]

Peckham Boy & First Mate are both right. What Southwark need to know is that the magoritry of people are simply opposed to a CPZ.

When I visited the exhibition at Southwark libary the Southwark Officer told us that the Bermondsey proposed CPZ was "defeated" by virtue of the number of people who signed petetions opposing it. It seems that if we want to defeat this proposal it''s going to be about mobilising a majority of the people affected -by the way I was told that they would take into account opposition expressed by people outside of the proposed CPZ who feel they would be adversely affected.

Don't be drawn into James Barbar's suggestion to replicate the consultation - that's just likley to complicate things and provide data for more stats around preferences.

If the magority of people's preference is "no CPZ" then we need to mobilse people to just let them know that.!

m

[James Barber]

Hi Zak,

But Southwark know that from the 2002/3 CPZ consultation all over East Dulwich.

[gsirett]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Zak,

> But Southwark know that from the 2002/3 CPZ

> consultation all over East Dulwich.

And what was the outcome of that consultation james? What did the people of ED want ?

[James Barber]

The nearer the station the more they wanted controlled parking and vice versa. Very clear those furthest away didn't want it. Not really very surprising results.

I suspect you'll rediscover this via your petition when you analyse the results.

[gsirett]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> The nearer the station the more they wanted

> controlled parking and vice versa. Very clear

> those furthest away didn't want it. Not really

> very surprising results.

> I suspect you'll rediscover this via your petition

> when you analyse the results.

OK, so some local residents wanted it and some didn't. Fair enough. So, whats the best way to decide whether to go ahead..........

a) look at for fors/againsts, and see what the majority want to do. Or

b) Repeat, only this time only ask a small number of people, you know to be in favour of such a scheme

One of these is a fair, democratic, process. One of these is an unethical attempt to achieve your objective

[colville09]

I remember the previous consultation well because we WERE consulted unlike this time. Living in Oglander near Grove Vale, we live much nearer the station than many people within this proposed CPZ. Why didn't you do a consultation within a equal arc of distance and then draw up a plan? or is that too logical and fair.

[easytiger]

It's because James is consulting the people nearer the station to make it easier to get in CPZ so they can raise funds as southwark has the biggest cuts in London. Where is the evidence that CPZ is needed? Only a few people have asked for parking control in the last few years. As i said on the other thread the petitions need to include people and businesses that are within CPZ as they carry the weight as TFL said last night but everyones views will be noted some with different weighting.