CPZ controlled parking in Denman/Talfourd/Lyndhurst/Bushey Hill/Crofton/Shenley

[rendelharris]

rupert james Wrote:

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

> From experience if 10 people vote for something, 6

> for and 4 against southwark will say 60% were in

> favour and forget those against.

Well you see, I'm none too clever on the old maths, but by my understanding if six people vote in favour of something and four against, that is 60% in favour, no? If others chose not to vote then they clearly don't care.

[northlondoner]

I think the majroity was closer to 52 per cent. Remenber - that's just over half of the 18% of local residents who voted. There is clearly no mandate for this scheme - which will affect the quality of life for hundreds of people. If the council had an iota of integrity it would make it quite clear that its scheme atttacted miniscule amounts of support amongst the commuity it's supposed to serve . Instead you have to badger and dig before it diviulges the 18% turnpout figure. Utterly shameful. But those facing similar shcemes must stand warned that so far as Southwark is concened , silence means consent.

[northlondoner]

rupert james Wrote:

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

> Perhaps you should ask from the 18% turnout who

> was for and who was against.

>

> That would give you a better idea of how the

> decision was arrived at.

>

> From experience if 10 people vote for something, 6

> for and 4 against southwark will say 60% were in

> favour and forget those against.

I think I know how the decision was arrived at. And its nothind to do with the abysmal 18% turnout. Here are the council's own words.

" In the last complete year, the approximate figure for permit fees from residents was ?1.3 million and the approximate figure from visitors parking was ?275,000. The remainder was from business permits and suspensions."

This is without the fees raked in from parking fines.

[northlondoner]

jimlad48 Wrote:

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

> How exactly is the consultation 'bogus'? It was

> asked for by the people, voted on by the people

> and supported by the people. Or in your eyes was

> it the wrong sort of people?

The phrase "the people" commonly means a groundswell of opinon or a popular movement.

A 52 per cent majority of an 18% turnout sounds more like "some people" rather than " the people".

How many of "the people" were cryigng out for this "consultation"?

And if by "emotional" you mean "objecting to wishes of a tiny band of agitators being foisted on the rest of us" or "irritated by a miniscule minoruty presuming to speak for 'the people' "...then so be it.

At least have the grace to acknowledge that there is litte popular support for this scheme.

[hammerman]

I really support Jimlad for what he is doing in his area about the parking situation! We had the same thing i.e. people parking for buses/trains who lived miles away, parking their cars to go to work in local schools/hospitals and it became a total nightmare for local residents i.e. disabled/elderly/families with children/just people wanting to park outside their own homes.

At first I wasn't in favour of anything different.

The CPZ isn't that hard to live with and that's only if you have to book a delivery or something.

You can still have deliveries/friends park before 12 or after 2pm so it's not the end of the world.

Unfortunately any CPZ just pushes the problem out to other areas which are feeling the effects now.

[jimlad48]

northlondoner Wrote:

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

> jimlad48 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > How exactly is the consultation 'bogus'? It was

> > asked for by the people, voted on by the people

> > and supported by the people. Or in your eyes

> was

> > it the wrong sort of people?

>

> The phrase "the people" commonly means a

> groundswell of opinon or a popular movement.

> A 52 per cent majority of an 18% turnout sounds

> more like "some people" rather than " the

> people".

> How many of "the people" were cryigng out for this

> "consultation"?

>

> And if by "emotional" you mean "objecting to

> wishes of a tiny band of agitators being foisted

> on the rest of us" or "irritated by a miniscule

> minoruty presuming to speak for 'the people'

> "...then so be it.

> At least have the grace to acknowledge that there

> is litte popular support for this scheme.

For the council, they required a 250 person signature petition to consider reopening the consultation. A nearly 350 person signature from Shenley, Bushey, Crofton and the three side roads was presented asking for a CPZ in those specific roads. This triggered the consultation. This required a lot of support from the local population which rather throws a spanner in the works of your 'tiny band of agitators' line - in fact my experience was that there was huge support on the doorstep, and judging by the number of emails I got on this through our community email page, there remains strong support.

Parking remains a total nightmare on these streets - this morning at 0720 there were zero car parking spaces on Shenley or the three 'cross' roads and plenty of cars stalking looking for one. People are fed up of this and the misery it is causing, hence the strong popular support for the CPZ.

You make out there is little support, I would simply refer you to the council report which comments on the statistically high levels of support for this scheme in the consultation which it said was substantially higher than normal. When turnout is enough to get this comment (and remember local democracy consultations very rarely see high turn outs, Lambeth recently put a CPZ in on 5% turnout of the population), you realise this CPZ has clearly got strong support.

Its also worth looking at the breakdown on the publicly available information, that is so clearly well hidden that its in plain view on the South 'Peckham Road South' parking consultation website (damn the council and their efforts to hide information in this devious manner), which gives a road by road breakdown of turnout and how they voted. The council itself recognises that some of the numbers are skewed because they include a large estate which already requires permits (and where turnout was accordingly almost zero).

You are assuming that everyone who didnt vote automatically didnt want it to happen and that they shouldnt adopt the proposal. What evidence, as in actual statistical evidence, do you have for this? The simple fact is that democracy in this country is decided by those who bother to vote. If you dont vote, your view doesnt count. So I have zero sympathy for your argument about the silent majority, because they're not. They could have voted YES or NO, but chose not to.

Ultimately democracy has won here, if you dnt like the result then by all means go and try to persuade the council to hold a vote to change it. But until then sulking that you dont like the democratic process because it didnt give you the result YOU wanted is a bit childish. I suspect had it been a NO vote on the same turnout you'd have been delighted for democracy - strange how democracy fails when it doesnt do exactly what you want isn't it!

[northlondoner]

A grand total of 216 people out of the 2,148 properties surveyed voted in favour of your scheme.

If the vote had gone the way I had wanted i would have been glad - but wouldn't have performed the intellectual gymnastics to persuade myself and others that it was anything other than a bullshit result of a bullshit process.

[jimlad48]

northlondoner Wrote:

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

> A grand total of 216 people out of the 2,148

> properties surveyed voted in favour of your

> scheme.

>

> If the vote had gone the way I had wanted i would

> have been glad - but wouldn't have performed the

> intellectual gymnastics to persuade myself and

> others that it was anything other than a bullshit

> result of a bullshit process.

And?

The people asked for it, the people got it. Not enough people voted to give you what you wanted - the people you want to be angry with are those who didnt want it and didnt vote. Don't blame me for getting off my backside, investing huge time in persuading people to support this and vote in favour of it. Its the lack of a no campaign that failed you. Personally I'm really glad of the role I played in introducing this CPZ and I'm delighted at the vote.

The funniest thing is, for unrelated reasons, since this all started I don't even own a car anymore, so I've got the result I want and I'm not even out of pocket as a result. :-)

[northlondoner]

OK fair play - that actually did make me laugh!

[Droler]

The Democratic People's Republic of Southwark have just tested a thermonuclear device under Burgess Park and fired an intercontinental ballistic missile over neighbouring Lambeth. Protestations from City Hall have been rebuked by President Kim Jong Peter John.

... it's all very north Korea

[MissWiggy]

Does anyone know when the CPZ is being introduced and what the procedure is for obtaining visitor permits?

Sorry in advance if I have missed the answer to my question in the above posts.

Thank you

[jimlad48]

MissWiggy Wrote:

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

> Does anyone know when the CPZ is being introduced

> and what the procedure is for obtaining visitor

> permits?

>

> Sorry in advance if I have missed the answer to my

> question in the above posts.

>

> Thank you

2 October - 4 new CPZs 'go live' on the same day in Southwark, so stand by for carnage and carmageddon.

Look on Southwark parking website for all information you need to get permit - it can be done online.

[Rosetta]

Which four?

[Droler]

1 new area in West Camberwell (Myatt's Fields) plus 2 extensions of existing zones around Coldharbour lane (https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/parking-transport-and-streets/parking/proposed-controlled-parking-zone-vassall-area) as well as Peckham Road South.

[rupert james]

'As part of the new CPZ which is being introduced early next year there are plans to introduce pay and display bays along by where the health centre is"

In response to another question relating to Chadwick Road/Grove Park this answer was given.

This refers to the recent Dog Kennel Hill area consultation regarding CPZ's. It has only just closed and no decision has been announced or agreed at Community Council meetings nor have any results of the consultation been published

It appears that Southwark already has decided and the consultation is no more than a sham.

Does anyone know more?

Another CPZ to add to the revenue flow for something that has not been asked for.

[spider69]

Unfortunately Chadwick Road and Grove Park are the last part of the jigsaw that will see the completion of a full CPZ

for this part of the neighbourhood.

Southwark wants all areas to be revenue producing so I suspect you are correct and it will be pushed through no matter what.

It would be interesting if people could comment on this as if there is no response Southwark will have won again although from talking with other residents it is not required or wanted.

What is interesting, to me at least, is there is a lot of Southwark interest focused on this CPZ plan overall and the closure and reopening of the bridge on Camberwell Grove.

Southwark have a plan and will push it through no matter what.

It will happen if people do not comment or respond. Southwark have said if residents do not want it, it will not happen. If you do not respond and others in favour do it will happen as per their plan.

The consultation has closed if you did not respond those that have an agenda have won.

[Droler]

I keep hearing this myth that CPZs are pushed by councils for revenue generation. This is a complete falsehood, they are only allowed to cover the costs of running, consulting and implementing CPZs. If they make a profit it is ring fenced for transport. This is laid down in national law. It is illegal to use them for revenue generation. If you think this is happening you should report them for the Council Ombudsman. They can only be put in with a majority decision as well. Queen's Road Peckham just rejected one on consultation so if Southwark do have an agenda clearly it isn't universal.

[Charles Notice]

With regard to your comment on majority decision the DKH result has just been set out.

2471 letters sent out 365 replies overall. 15%

Unfortunately as Southwark look for a response rate of 10% overall that have declared that they will push for full implementation of the CPZ based on yes percentages.

However when one looks closely at the figures it is a joke.

For our road. 98 houses in total, 14 replies, 9 for, 5 against. The against vote does not count those responses that were received outside of the consultation. I know people who only found out late and emailed and had their vote rejected which would have pushed the against vote up. If a decision to implement is carried on 3 or 4 votes it does not reflect what is correct from such a small response based on the total properties involved.. People should have voted but I only came across the consultation by accident how many other were in the same boat but my no vote was rejected. Many of the residents are only passing through by renting so have no interest.

No matter how small the yes vote is if it means they have one vote majority in favour on very small turnouts they will take it as a yes vote.

If people would like to take the time to look at PDF1 report for the DKH CPZ or get Southwark to send it to you you will see what aa farce this has been.

Before the usual response is posted "you should have voted" perhaps Southwark should have looked at the returns and said this decision on these numbers covering such a large area is wrong. But they want a CPZ's all over the Borough.

Permit fees, parking fines, tow away fines etc etc.

Looking at plans the number of double yellow lines, meter parking cutting down existing parking makes your head spin.

This will be coming to an area near you very soon.

[Droler]

A majority is still a majority I'm afraid, that's way it works, as long as the rules have been adhered to. I live in the next area, our CPZ going live on October 2nd, along with 3 other areas in south east London. You will noticed a marked change in parking after that. It may even change your mind. I would have opposed one a few years ago but it's so bad now I am all for it starting

[Charles Notice]

You are I suspect in the toast rack. That I think we can all understand.

[jimlad48]

I am a toastrack resident, and I helped friends in DKH who campaigned for this result. Their accounts sounded truly horrific about the parking, even after thinking the toastrack was bad. In two weeks multiple new CPZs will kick in, and suddenly DKH is going to be one of the few areas left without parking restrictions - stand by for an influx of commuters and other workers - because this is what happened to us, and took our streets from firm rejection to enthusiastic support.

15% sounds high to me - most CPZ campaigns go through on less. If a majority of people have spoken then thats it, job done. I always suspect those moaning about turnout never moan when previous low turn out favoured a no vote...

[sally buying]

Take a look at the complete breakdown and you will see what a farce this result is.

Some roads yes the rest no.

[Loz]

Droler Wrote:

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

> I keep hearing this myth that CPZs are pushed by councils for revenue generation. This is a

> complete falsehood, they are only allowed to cover the costs of running, consulting and implementing

> CPZs. If they make a profit it is ring fenced for transport. This is laid down in national law. It

> is illegal to use them for revenue generation.

And it is the 'profit' bit that is the killer. Because such a wide use for the profit ("transport") allows the council to effectively subsidise costs they would normally have to budget for. That money can then be used for other things, so the council effectively does make money.

It can work a bit like this. Let's say a council charges someone ?100 a year for having a front fence, but on the condition that they will use all the money they charge in 'upkeeping fences'. The person agrees, because they know that the fence needs about ?100 of work done on it a year, so that's pretty fair.

Then, after a while that council changes that charge to ?150 because they know that they have another fence somewhere else that is currently costing them ?50 a year. Both fences are now covered by the one persons' fence-charge money and they now have a ?50 'profit' in their budget they can spend on whatever they like.

The following year the same council realises that their nice flower bed in front of the council offices is costing them ?50 a year, but it is growing right on the edge of the property... so close it could really be considered a fence. So now the charge gets put up another ?50 to ?200 a year and that frees up another ?50 for them to spend on other things.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Profit.

[Abe_froeman]

East Dulwich will be next. There are CPZs preventing commuting from North Dulwich through Herne Hill to Brixton . If parking to commute from Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye is impossible then those people will drive into East Dulwich to park and the clamour for a CPZ there will grow and grow.

It's an inveitable domino effect

[Droler]

Indeed, they are self perpetuating. Things change very quickly in adjacent areas when they go in, as we found out in the toast rack. Bellenden Road area will be next, then around Lordship lane because of the numerous bus routes. I'm afraid this just bounced the issue to to next place,but there are way too many people using cars for commuting not because they have to but because they can.