Lordship Lane Independent Traders On TV Tonight @ 6.30pm

[Zak]

I understand that there's going to be some coverage of the proposed East Dulwich CPZ and it's impact on the local economy on the 6.30pm Regional News on BBC 1.

Several of local traders from Lordship Lane are expected to be interviewed.

I wonder if there will be anyone from Southwark Council there to explain how committed they are to supporting local businesses!

Interestingly, earlier today, the House of Commons Housing Communities & Local Government Committee published a report about the future of high streets. One of their Recommendations is;

"We recommend that action is taken at local level to create visionary strategies for high streets and town centres which have the backing of the local community, to support local traders,to facilitate parking and to develop the role of place partnerships"

Is Southwark listening?

[Bic Basher]

I'll record and post on YouTube later this evening.

[Lynne]

What, in simple English, are "Visionary strategies"?

[rendelharris]

Lynne Wrote:

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

> What, in simple English, are "Visionary

> strategies"?

Visionary: "thinking about or planning the future with imagination or wisdom."

Strategy: "a plan of action designed to achieve a long-term or overall aim."

You're welcome.

[tomskip]

Was this feature included on the BBC London news tonight?

[Passiflora]

Just seen it on the 10.30 BBC news. Showed Lordship Lane and some shops against the CPZ.

[Passiflora]

Showed an ornament shop with the owner saying he was against the CPZ and also Sophie outside Farmer's against the CPZ.

Then a short piece from Richard Livingstone from Southwark Council.

[Bic Basher]

Here's the report.

[siousxiesue]

Bic Basher Wrote:

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

> Here's the report.

>

>

Funny enough, the suggested video after this one is called 'Total idiots at work' vol2!!

[hairman1968]

CLEAN AIR!! This council must be joking,how can they let M&S get rid of the (old Iceland)carpark so they can extend their store! Then convert the offices into flats and then allow them to build another floor with more flats with no parking spaces for the residents , let them open another M&S by the train station Allowing their lorries to go up and down lordship Lane polluting our air , and then try and blame all the car users !! And as for all the coaches picking up all the schoolchildren in Townley Road , i?m sure they don?t help with keeping the air clean

The CPZ will not help lordship Lane and using the fresh air excuse is unfair

[Sue]

Thank you for the YouTube clip.

The first shop was Roullier White, wasn't it?

[Abe_froeman]

I don't expect the Labour council to be moved by that report at all. They just love taxing people til they squeak. they are not going give up high business rates and the opportunity to make a fortune from a CPZ even if it means some people's businesses go bust.

They just don't care.

The complete lack of transparency on the cost of the CPZ against the projected income betrays how much profit they actually anticipate making out of their residents.

[Penguin68]

Much as I dislike the Mayor's ULEZ - this will do far more to achieving clean air than the CPZ - you can quickly show this by asking how much of a contribution to clean air will not allowing 'foreign' electric or hydrogen powered vehicles to park in ED make? Clearly none. Yet these are covered by the CPZ as are all other vehicles. When this is forced on us (the CPZ) I would bet a pound to a fly-button that any ensuing improvements in air quality will be credited to the CPZ by Southwark, and not the ULEZ.

[Sue]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> I don't expect the Labour council to be moved by

> that report at all. They just love taxing people

> til they squeak. they are not going give up high

> business rates and the opportunity to make a

> fortune from a CPZ even if it means some people's

> businesses go bust.

>

> They just don't care.

>

I don't think that's fair.

To the best of my knowledge, councils are being forced to find money from somewhere to fund vital services, because of the actions of the Tory government. They have already had to stop funding many things which are important to sections of the community.

Having to find money because of Tory cuts is not the same as "taking the opportunity to make a fortune."

Is my perception of the situation wrong?

[DulwichFox]

The Guy from Roullier White said himself that 50% of his trade came from outside the area and most of his customers drive.

That would suggest to me that shops like his are the cause of the problem and creating the need for CPZ.

[nxjen]

Yes, if in fact that figure is accurate which I don?t think it is, it?s exaggerated. Like his statement that 30% of shops in Lordship Lane were boarded up after Sainsbury?s opened - not so. And where did this phrase ?Deadship Lane? come from which it is claimed was what LL was called then? I never heard it called that!

ETA He also claimed that it?s difficult for a family to visit the shops on a Saturday is difficult without the use of a car: as it?s most unlikely any CPZ would be in affect at the weekend, it?s just more scaremongering.

[TheArtfulDogger]

Hi Nxjen

As I understand it, the 50% figure is based on the petition that the businesses have been collecting, with a roughly equally split of local and outside ED postcodes gleamed from the over 8,000 signatures. Fairly good evidence to support the claim, which is more than the council have done to understand the demographics of shoppers and what effects a CPZ could have on local businesses.

I still remember when sainsburys on dog kennel hill opened all those years ago, a large number of food business and others shut up shop due to the supermarkets competition, which has taken over 20 years to reverse. I heard Deadship Lane and other phrases used at that time, I guess different people heard different things.

One of the options being consulted on at the moment by the council includes the CPZ being in operation on Saturday as well as during the week.

In my opinion, what was presented was hardly scaremongering by the businesses but their genuine fear about the introduction of a CPZ and it's potential negative effect on our thriving and independent high street.

Personally, after living here through the period after Sainsburys came along, I for one don't want to see local businesses being forced out of the area by yet another barrier for them, do you?

[nxjen]

After Sainsbury?s opened, it was the butchers, greengrocers and perhaps a couple of bakers that sadly had to close. This didn?t constitute anything like the 30% that has been claimed. I would also dispute that it took 20 years for the high street to recover, I would say it was most definitely on the up again at the time of the Millenium though not with the same mix of shops that there are now.

No, I don?t want to see businesses forced out of the area, I don?t like to see anybody lose their jobs or their livelihood. But as someone remarked on another thread, if the shops? business model relies on free parking that makes resident parking difficult (though this too has been a matter of exaggeration in some parts of the proposed zone) there is something amiss.

FWIW, I think the outcome will be a CPZ will be introduced around the station with say the area south of Goose Green continuing as it is now.

[nxjen]

I forgot to say on my previous post that the basis for arriving at the figure of 50% of visitors to Lordship Lane coming from outside the area does not stand up to scrutiny as the data used does not represent an unbiassed cross section. The figure is based on those who are opposed to the CPZ and have signed the petition. Those who support the CPZ will not have signed the petition but still count as visitors to Lordship Lane. It is most likely that those who are for the CPZ and so have not signed the petition will have come from within the area whereas it is unlikely that those from outside the area would support the CPZ as it would inhibit their ability to park and so have signed the petition.

[MarkT]

nxjen,

fair point about bias. This whole process is riddled with bias. You argue the petition is biased in favour of visitors voting against.

On the other hand, the Council is claiming, at the start of the consultation 98 residents for and 0 against. We have been told that is totally unprompted, but does anyone write to the council out of the blue to demand the status quo?

The on-line consultation questionnaire segregates residents from "visitors"; the latter includes everybody on the immediate border of the proposed CPZ. Is that a fair bias?

By the way all those outsiders who have come in their cars have successfully done so to be be able to sign the petition, so they must have been able to find a parking space.

We are constantly told that through-commuters, going on by train, are filling every available parking space, but I would think it a high risk venture to drive this far into town to park, and get to work on time, unless you had a good chance of finding a parking space.

[Lynne]

People from other areas of ED park around the Goose Green area to catch the train. I've seen residents of the Upland/Overhill Rd areas park . Whether they'd be still entitled to after a CPZ, I don't know. So it's not just people driving in from outlying places to park here.

[MarkT]

If people drive from the other end of East Dulwich to catch a train, they must be confident of finding a space to park near the station. Whether they are coming from Underhill Road or Canterbury surely it demonstrates there is not a critical shortage of parking space near the station.

[rendelharris]

MarkT Wrote:

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

> If people drive from the other end of East Dulwich

> to catch a train, they must be confident of

> finding a space to park near the station. Whether

> they are coming from Underhill Road or Canterbury

> surely it demonstrates there is not a critical

> shortage of parking space near the station.

...until the commuters have got there and taken all the available spaces, and then there are none left during the day for carers, tradesmen, visitors or any person unfortunate enough to have needed to use their vehicle around the time of the commuter influx. This is what happens on our road (near the station) - there might be a few spaces available early in the morning, but from 7.30 onwards those spaces are quickly seized by commuters (who literally circle the streets waiting for a space to come up) and then for the rest of the day until the commuters leave spaces are of the hen's teeth variety. There wouldn't be a critical shortage of parking space without the commuter, but they are there and there is.

[Bic Basher]

If you live at the other end of ED, aren't you more likely to use Forest Hill or Honor Oak Park? To be fair, even West Dulwich, Herne Hill or Tulse Hill are also options. Denmark Hill is busier than East Dulwich and relatively close to Goose Green as well.

[dresswaves]

Bic Basher Wrote:

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

> If you live at the other end of ED, aren't you

> more likely to use Forest Hill or Honor Oak Park?

> To be fair, even West Dulwich, Herne Hill or Tulse

> Hill are also options. Denmark Hill is busier

> than East Dulwich and relatively close to Goose

> Green as well.

Forest Hill & Honor Oak Park are Zone 3 so a saving of over ?300. I think you?ll find East Dulwich is one of the few zone 2 stations that doesn?t have parking restrictions on surrounding streets. I know that was the case a few years ago wen I worked at London Bridge & several coworkers drove to E Dulwich so they could have a cheaper season ticket.