Dulwich Hill CPZ Meeting 17th July 6-8 pm.

[first mate]

Have just read the foreword. Not persuasive. Again citing some dubious supporting stats. The bit that riles is 'creating green spaces'; by actively licensing off sections of park for months on end, they are doing the opposite and ungreening the borough.

 

Edited July 18, 2023 by first mate

[alice]

Angry mob? Once you use words like that anything else you say it’s going to be disregarded. 

[CPR Dave]

They were supposed to create green spaces and "reclaim" their own streets from themselves with the LTNs. It's not a new idea and they have a track record of failure already.

Look at the appalling state those spaces are in now, gathering detritus around the rotting wooden structures that were seemingly dumped and abandoned.

You  can have a similar wreck on your on street too now for only £2/300 a year per household.

[mrwb]

The problem is the council are running short of revenue and the solution is to put in paid parking in the areas that don't have it already?

It's as simple as that, isn't it ? Anyone got the council budget and actual numbers, for the current financial year, or where can we see it? 

 

[Pugwash]

I did not get to the meeting as had a prior meeting to attend, however hubby went and was amazed at the numbers attending. Spoke to a neighbour who was at the meeting, , and he was sitting next to a  councillor who clearly was unhappy. Neighbour stated that Southwark must be running out of money and the councillor confirmed that this was a correct and CPZs were a money raising exercise.

I heard that after a while people abandoned sitting around tables and put chairs together in rows and really hammered their views home.

Labour councillors over the years have  always considered ED and Dulwich wealthy. In the late 70s early 80s, myself and other parents of Goodrich school lead a protest against the council who refused to provide some educational facility to the school on the grounds that ED parents were rich and could pay for this themselves.. It got reported in the South London Press. Do we know whether Southwark News were present or been notified.?

[Rockets]

Southwark council is full of councillors that have always looked on this part of Dulwich with contempt - contempt because of the wealth. Cllr McAsh may have removed his Marxist descriptor from his twitter tagline (and replaced it with socialist) but it runs deep in him and many parts of the council. You need money - go harvest the folks with gardens and cars and if they complain makes them feel bad for daring to challenge them.

[nell79]

2 hours ago, alice said:

Angry mob? Once you use words like that anything else you say it’s going to be disregarded. 

As someone who was there, I actually agree with the description 'angry mob'.  I can't think of how else to describe people shouting over each other aggressively, likening the behaviour of the council to that of the Nazis, and accusing them of being responsible for the 'next Sarah Everard' by forcing women out of their cars.   Many people felt unable to speak up for the changes (evident from discussions with people afterwards) or indeed ask questions, for worry of themselves being shouted at by residents opposed to the changes.  

[alice]

I disagree. 

[Rockets]

It's interesting that what was a small vocal minority is now being painted as an angry mob....maybe this is reflective of the way the council have been treating residents over the last few years. CPZs may be the final straw for many to see through the council's greenwashing charades....and motivate more to act and challenge the council. The council have been getting away with underhand tactics for years....they may be finally reaping what they have sowed...but they only have themselves to blame.

[Stuka]

It wasn't a small minority. It was the vast majority. Cllr McCash was constantly shouted at, heckled and interrupted. He was sworn at and compared to the Nazis. I lost count of the number of times he had to say something like "I will try answer all your questions but I can't if people are going to continue to shout and talk over me." He kept is calm throughout and continued to try and answer people. 

[Penguin68]

5 minutes ago, Stuka said:

It wasn't a small minority. It was the vast majority.

Says it all, really. Shouting people down isn't nice, of course, but it demonstrates real levels of unhappiness. If we'd been in France there would have been vehicles set on fire by now, and real riots. It heartens me that people in South Southwark (old Borough of Camberwell) are still sufficiently un-cowed to show their anger at a wholly undemocratic set of actions. When the apparat don't listen, we have to shout harder.

[Rockets]

The next set of meetings should be fun! 😉

 

But in all seriousness the council has to engage more with their constituents and those constituents need to be cool-headed as some of the things seemingly to have been said during the meetings are ludicrous (I thought comparing people to fascists was exclusively reserved for the use of the pro-LTN lobby ;-)) . For too long constituent views have been ignored or steam-rollered out of the way by this council and what we are seeing now is probably the pent-up frustration from that and I do hope the council are taking stock. Cllr McAsh, for all his faults, is trying to do the right thing and is also a very shrewd political operator who knows that the CPZ plans may be a step too far - I am sure there are conversations going on within the council about that right now - and I do wonder if this is the reason he has negotiated his ward not to be included - i.e. I lead the fight but keep it out of my backyard please as I don't want my political career to come at the cost of the CPZ). They managed to bluster and bludgeon their way through the LTN debacle, although Cllr Rose stepped down because of it, but the CPZs were always going to stir a hornets-nest because so many people own cars in Dulwich and I sense a lot more people are as angry about this as some were about LTNs.

Cllr McAsh, and many of his peers, are keen proponents and supporters of protest and civil interference but now he, and his councillors, are likely to be on the receiving end of some so it will be interesting to see how they manage it. My sense if they will grit their teeth and get through the public meetings and then hide away again as they steamroll their plans for CPZs through hoping that people will have forgotten about it by the time of the next council elections - by which time we will have a Labour government so they won't be able to try and leverage the local vote to send a national signal that they did last time round.

[paco]

23 hours ago, eastdulwichproperty said:

Well done Councillor McAsh for standing up in front of this angry mob, he was one of the few sensible people in the room. His calm and reasoned responses were well presented in very hostile circumstances. Several people asked 'why this was happening?' and clearly hadn't understood the problem that was trying to be solved. The attached document 'Foreword' section summarises the overall problem clearly and concisely. I'm sure that there are many more people that would have spoken up in favour of the plans if the meeting hadn't degenerated into an angry shouting match (I say match but of course all the shouting was in one direction), it would take a brave person to stand up to that. Through all the shouting I didn't actually hear anything sensible or constructive from the opposition, what is their solution to the problem?

Streets for People Strategy 2023-2030.pdfStreets for People Strategy 2023-2030.pdfStreets for People Strategy 2023-2030.pdfStreets for People Strategy 2023-2030.pdfStreets for People Strategy 2023-2030.pdfStreets for People Strategy 2023-2030.pdf 5.41 MB · 11 downloads

Unfortunately, some people didn't contribute in a constructive way - speaking over others wasn't useful.

Did you speak up and say anything sensible or constructive?

Maybe consider why people were angry.

The Council want to impose the CPZ and constructed the meeting so that people wouldn't get the opportunity to see how others felt.

This is not consultation. It's a con and it's insulting.

I don't think Councillor McAsh's responses were well presented at all.

1 hour ago, Stuka said:

It wasn't a small minority. It was the vast majority. Cllr McCash was constantly shouted at, heckled and interrupted. He was sworn at and compared to the Nazis. I lost count of the number of times he had to say something like "I will try answer all your questions but I can't if people are going to continue to shout and talk over me." He kept is calm throughout and continued to try and answer people. 

Yes it was a small minority. A few people kept speaking over others. This was annoying.

The majority of people waited their turn to speak. 

The Councillor didn't really address some of the questions asked and clearly didn't want an open meeting in the first place!

[Rockets]

And I think that is the problem - the council are doing everything in their power to stop open forums. They did it in the first round of CPZ meetings years ago - remember the Dulwich Library (too many people in the room debacle)?

They seem to have gone out of their way to under-publicise the public meetings - not sure why it isn't flagged on the documentation delivered to everyone on the consultation - that should be a legal requirement in my mind. It seems the council were caught off-guard because they thought they had done enough to bury information on the meetings yet someone found it and used social media to ensure a few people knew about it.

 

I would encourage anyone, on either side of the debate, to attend the remaining meetings and force the council to engage in a democratic and fair way - given their experience at the first two I am sure they will put plans in place to try to mitigate the risk of them losing control of the narrative - as has seemed to have happened at the first two. And to those who only go to shout and throw ludicrous insults at the councillors don't because it isn't helping the cause...when these councillors feel they are losing the argument they tend to retrench behind claims of "vicious personal attacks" and try to use it to shift the narrative tends to be their go-to on social media in such situations (remember the Cllr Newens anti-LTN sign left outside her house #solidaritycomrade social media thread?).

[Stuka]

1 hour ago, paco said:

The Councillor didn't really address some of the questions asked and clearly didn't want an open meeting in the first place!

They def didn't want an open meeting, but I disagree about not addressing the questions - I thought he did, it's just the majority of the room simply didn't like his answers.

FWIW I went there objecting to the scheme. I came away still objecting to the scheme for multiple reasons, but I thought the most persuasive, calm and reasoned argument was from the person who was in favour, particularly brave given the atmosphere in the room.

 

[Rockets]

They have never wanted open meetings about anything since the LTNs went in - and that is because they know if they did open-up and engaged properly with constituents they would never get the mandate to do it - they learnt a painful lesson from the 68% of residents who responded are against the CPZs the last time around so they are using every tactic to stifle debate and the democratic process. It must be difficult for Cllr McAsh because he has always been very critical of the Tories for doing exactly the same thing but seems to be happy to take a page from their playbook when it suits his agenda. That's what I hate about politics nowadays - the moral fibre has gone and they are all as snake-like as the others.

[CPR Dave]

7 hours ago, paco said:

This is not consultation. It's a con and it's insulting.

Perfect summary. 

 

[Pugwash]

James McAsh is a primary school teacher and used to having to control some noisy kids. Interesting that CPZ meetings have not been advertise for Goose Green Ward where he stands. Goose Green Ward residents were approached some time ago re CPZ in their streets . It was some time after the CPZ was implemented in the Grove Vale area and it was streets running from Crystal Palace Road up to the boundary with Dulwich Hill. There was strong opposition at the time and the council backed down.

[modernMajorGeneral]

On 20/07/2023 at 15:30, Pugwash said:

James McAsh is a primary school teacher and used to having to control some noisy kids. Interesting that CPZ meetings have not been advertise for Goose Green Ward where he stands. Goose Green Ward residents were approached some time ago re CPZ in their streets . It was some time after the CPZ was implemented in the Grove Vale area and it was streets running from Crystal Palace Road up to the boundary with Dulwich Hill. There was strong opposition at the time and the council backed down.

They'll be back to complete the job. The policy inexplicably changed in 2019. We have to all stand together against the council. It's no good each area resisting alone. 

We have a Southwark wide letter for ppl to sign here:

https://opposethecpz.org/2023/07/27/southwark-wide-petition/

Tell everyone you know to sign. If we get 1500 signatures we can get a debate at council.

On 17/07/2023 at 20:28, Ivvan said:

I went to the meeting at Christ Church on Monday 17 July for the so called 'consultation' about the introduction of a CPZ area for Dulwich Hill. It was a complete whitewash because the Council has already decided to introduce it. Most people in the meeting were totally opposed to the idea. It is yet another attack on people in a cost of living crisis. It is another way for the Council to raise money. We need to organise our opposition across the borough. Where is the mandate for this decision? I thought the Council/politicians are voted in to work on our behalf, not just impose their will. How will those on a state pension be able to afford the £240 pa to park their car? The Councillor who led the meeting made a gob stopping comment when he said that Dulwich Hill residents were not exactly poor, a sweeping comment if ever there was one.

 

We need a borough wide campaign otherwise they will pick us off ward by ward. Is there a cross borough petition to oppose these CPZ's? We need one urgently.

We launched our borough wide letter for everyone opposed to the CPZ to sign 

https://opposethecpz.org/2023/07/27/southwark-wide-petition/

Tell everyone!

[mr.chicken]

On 30/07/2023 at 23:26, modernMajorGeneral said:

The policy inexplicably changed in 2019. We have to all stand together against the council. It's no good each area resisting alone.

Well, not all of us. I support the CPZ.

[first mate]

Modern Major General said: "The policy inexplicably changed in 2019. We have to all stand together against the council. It's no good each area resisting alone."

 

I agree, the council needs to engage and listen and if this is the only way of doing it then more power to you.

[Dmitri]

Is there any update on the CPZ? I.e., when it might start, what hours it will operate?

Does anyone know if it will cover the areas near Aquarius Golf course as it is very difficult to play golf without a car if you have clubs and a trolley?

[Rockets]

I think it has been delayed...pending the outcome of the election......

[sunbob]

On 31/10/2023 at 16:29, Dmitri said:

Is there any update on the CPZ? I.e., when it might start, what hours it will operate?

Does anyone know if it will cover the areas near Aquarius Golf course as it is very difficult to play golf without a car if you have clubs and a trolley?

Apologies if this is about something else, I didn't know about this thread or the CPZ (even though it turns out I live in the Dulwich Hill area).

On Thursday a poster called MrsZ made a new thread called 'No Southwark wide CPZ after all' where they shared an email saying that Dulwich Hill isn't going to have a CPZ at the moment and that councillors apologize for getting it wrong.

Apologies also if I've summarised that incorrectly, I can't flick between this and that thread to check.

Anyway the thread is on this 'Roads and transport ' page to look at.