former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[Loz]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> 22 streets of residents were asked if they wanted

> their street to be included in a controlled

> parking zone. A tiny few have a very clear

> majority of residents who want controlled parking

> on their street. Some more have said that if a

> neighbouring street were to have controlled

> parking they'd want it.

>

> What do we say to residents on that street?

> Do we say to them many people who never park on

> your street, who have little or nothing to do with

> you and your street have decided you can't have

> what you feel you need on your street.

In a word, James, 'yes'.

In cases like this it always useful to extrapolate a little bit. Why draw the line at a street? Why not the bit of street in front of a house? If the owner of 123 Somewhere Street asked the council to install a CPZ (permits issued to their household only) just for the area in front of their house, would your argument also apply? I mean, why should those neighbours have a say what that person feels is what is needed for the bit of street in front of their house?

It is a nonsensical argument. It is a selfish argument. Unless, of course, that my suggestion that any CPZ permit holders may not park in non-CPZ residential streets. Otherwise, they are having their cake and eating it too.

If - and only if - there were no knock on effects then you'd be correct. But you have acknowledged that there will be probably significant knock on effects and so that is why the surrounding streets have to have their opinions included.

Because the word you are looking for is 'stakeholders'. And I believe that, by law, ALL stakeholders have to be consulted. And listened to.

[Bobby P]

I think for residents this is now a matter of selfishness against considering the greater good.

Would it not be unfair for a very small number of residents on one or two hard-to-park-on streets to be granted a CPZ, which (by its limited nature) directly affects the parking of the neighbouring streets, who have voted against having a CPZ?

That of course is exactly the reason the Council is prepared to suggest a one or two street CPZ - because they know that the next-door streets will thence be parked up more heavily by people from the CPZ streets (who don't want to pay for the permit), and know that in due course the neighbouring streets will likely vote for a CPZ to ease the newly caused congestion which today they find liveable with.

A one or two street CPZ is inherently a "selfish" option: anyone who seriously wants this on their street is effectively saying "to hell with my neighbours on the next street, I don't care how it affects them, as long as I can park directly outside my house".

It may be that the one street CPZ allows them to park more easily for a while, by moving any non-paying traffic to the next door street, but in time the CPZ will have to grow to accommodate the new parking problems they've deliberately and selfishly caused on their neighbours' streets. And so parking will end up as bad as ever for everyone, including the original CPZers, but will be costing everyone ?125+ a year - no gain for any resident, only to Council coffers.

Anyone who insists on a limited CPZ in their street seems to me by definition to be selfish (i.e. not considering the consequences for their neighbours, or considering them less important than their own needs). Surely any good and fair Council should be weighing heavily the needs of the many against the wishes of the few.

[Huguenot]

There is a dedicated thread for CPZ issues, and the conversation should be restricted to there in order to allow residents an opportunity to discuss other issues with James.

Please respect that.

[buddug]

Why should this thread be restricted only to issues other than the CPZ? James has called it: "East Dulwich councillor - can I help? The CPZ threat is something he should help with as it would make the lives of many people and businesses who are based here more difficult, both financially and in terms of stress and upset. But he is refusing to do so, despite the pleas for help coming from the majority.

And whenever someone posts a burglary, mainly to warn others or simply to be given 'tea and sympathy', all he does is callously pontificate on how the statistics prove how the LibDems have brought crime down and the need to mark belongings - when I posted my first burglary I specifically told him not to do it with me and thankfully he didn't. And despite his posting somewhere that leaseholder victims of Southwark Council should bring their problems to him to sort out, all he said to me when I did this was advise me to buy the freehold! As I've said before, he's all mouth and trousers. Or mouth and no trousers. Whatever. Out of interest, has anyone been helped by him?

[Senor Chevalier]

Buddug - tempting as it clearly was to "put the boot in" I can answer your question with a simple yes, he has been of help.

Whilst I don't always agree with his view on everything (e.g. his apparant stance on CPZs) generally JB takes an active interest in ED and tries to help where he can. He also "puts himself out there" on this forum (braving the cranks along the way) and we would be worse off without him.

So zip it.

[Ipe]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> 22 streets of residents were asked if they wanted

> their street to be included in a controlled

> parking zone. A tiny few have a very clear

> majority of residents who want controlled parking

> on their street. Some more have said that if a

> neighbouring street were to have controlled

> parking they'd want it.

>

Isn't the obvious explanation for this response that residents know the inevitable impact of a neighbouring CPZ will be traffic problems on their street? In my mind this does not support the argument For but only strengthens the case Against. It seems transparent to all except James Barber that the proposed CPZ will inevitably have a negative impact on neighbouring streets, residents of which must be considered stakeholders.

Previous comments from James that residents not directly on the proposed streets should have little or no say on the matter are deeply concerning and suggest that he does not appreciate the scale of impact that a CPZ will have on the area regardless of the initial size. It is for this reason that the CPZ should not be considered as an isolated scheme for a few roads since the impact will inevitably be wider, and for this reason in turn that it should be rejected due to the clear overall majority against.

[buddug]

Zip it? Se?or Chevalier, just as James Barber hates democracy, it seems his apologists don't like freedom of speech either. Nice to hear you disagree with his curious stance on the CPZ though.:)-D

[Senor Chevalier]

OK, Buddug zip it, unzip it, whatever. Just thought your extrapolation from the CPZ issue to "anything" was something of a leap and undermined your position. Pint sounds good.

[buddug]

:))

[pipsky2008]

Mr Barber

I wish to put together a formal letter requesting information. Should I request this information using the freedom of information act or the data protection act? Is it necessary to formulate the request in such a way, for example 'I request blah blah under paragraph 16, section 7 of the data protection act 1992' for instance.

If you know, Or if others know, I'd be grateful

[Pugwash]

James is not the only ED Councillor - you have Jonathan and Rosie, and if being debated at the Dulwich Community Council - will have 8 other councillors so all political parties will be respresented.

[James Barber]

Hi buddug,

I'm sorry you feel I've not served you well. Sorry.

Southwark Council for leaseholders is generally rubbish where a divided house on a regualr street involved. So, yes, in most circumstances buying the freehold for a property is better than expecting an organisation managing 55,000 properties to bend. Southwark typically spends more on admin for each leasehold property than it recieves which means other tenants and council tax payers subsidise the poor service. So when you want new windows such isolated property are at the back of a very long queue where blocks of lfats are easier to do. And Southwark is only allowed to sell such freeholds to leaseholders. A definite lose lose lose situation.

But if you have an issue still I'll happily take it up as I have with other leaseholders.

The forum is a great place to tell people about risks of crime but it can increase fear beyond the realistic levels. All I've tried to do is ensure some moderation in that fear of crime and advise people to point tht fear at crime prevention.

CPZ. Yes most streets consulted have said they don't want controlled parking - espeically those north of Grove Vale. Some streets have said they do want controlled parking to avoid the parking stress they currently suffer. The proposals for controlled parking are now for 1hour on an experimental basis.

As for businesses on Grove Vale I'd have thought having more local parking available with commuter parking gone would be of help to them.

[Penguin68]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE - the evidence for 'commuter' traffic meaning transit traffic has never been fully made, but there does seem to be 'commuter' traffic meaning 'commuters' who travel into to ED to work and service (i.e. teach) the people who live here. Mr Barber himself has used these people (local businesses) as 'commuters' when suggesting their views regarding Melbourne Grove should be ignored.

It is true that if you exclude from ED streets people who want to work in ED and teach our children the people who are resident here will find it easier to park - they will just find it less pleasant to live where teachers don't want to come here to teach or other service industries to serve because life for them has just been made a lot worse.

It is a strange supporter of ED who wants to drive out from ED its economic and service providers. If the 'commuters' parking on Grove Vale are in part their people working in Grove Vale businesses then possibly they won't be quite so happy as Mr Barber suggests.

[Carrie]

James,

Please could you ask the relevant parties to come and have another look at the drainage issues that have arisen following the pavement works carried out when the new crossing was installed on Grove Vale.

A small rainwater lake has formed where the pavement dips down in the middle, right by the crossing, and whilst a drain has been installed this is not at the lowest point and therefore is fairly useless.

We have been lucky so far that temperatures have remained above freezing but if it does get cold this could be a real hazard.

Thanks

[first mate]

James, I quote you earlier today:

"The proposals for controlled parking are now for 1hour on an experimental basis".

When was this decision made and by whom?

[gsirett]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> CPZ. Yes most streets consulted have said they

> don't want controlled parking - espeically those

> north of Grove Vale. Some streets have said they

> do want controlled parking to avoid the parking

> stress they currently suffer. The proposals for

> controlled parking are now for 1hour on an

> experimental basis.

> As for businesses on Grove Vale I'd have thought

> having more local parking available with commuter

> parking gone would be of help to them.

James, just so nobody gets confused by your summaries:

1. "some streets" = 2 (out of 22 consulted)

2. the current proposals are for "experimenatl" CPZ's on 1 or 3 Roads only .These have never been done before and NOT been consulted on with the local community. They have only appeared AFTER 70% of respondents to the consultation said NO.

Also, could you please answer the following question:

In that, you and many others at southwark seem prepared to ignore 70% majority in your own consultation, 2000 people signinig peitions, local businesses BEFORE putting in your CPZ, could you please clarify what people would have to do to getting rid of the "experimental" CPZ AFTER all of the markings have been put down, the machines installed and the extra wardens employed?

Please no wishy-washy answers.

[Huguenot]

The 1 hour proposal has been discussed on this site for months.

Is it really so unreasonable that we keep CPZ discussions to the dedicated CPZ thread, rather than drowning out people like Carrie who have other issues to discuss with the councillor?

This is why there is a seperate thread, to allow for all the needs of the community.

People insisting on trying to dominate every thread with repetitive CPZ claims at the expense of other people are acting incredibly selfishly.

[buddug]

James Barber wrote: "But if you have an issue still I'll happily take it up as I have with other leaseholders."

So why didn't you at the time? I wrote you a very long email and chatted with you at length about the catalogue of disasters I've had to put up with over the 13 years I've lived in my flat due to a string of cowboys contractors sent to do 'repairs' or major works botching, having to be sent back on numerous occasions, and finally causing water damage to the internal of the flat twice in two years due to 'work' done to the exterior. Never mind the bogus service charges that had to be taken off our bill on several occasions, such as being charged for a new gate - which replaced the one damaged by their contractors!

All this - and much much more - has cost the council (or rather taxpayers!) at least ?10,000 in compensation payments to make good the damage and replace damaged items, a sum which has been admitted by the head of housing in writing to me. This shocking fact alone should have inspired you to look into the matter, but you showed complete indifference to this.

At the time, all you could say, and kept saying until I told you to stop, was "buy the freehold". My upstairs neighbour and I have been told by the council this could cost up to ?10,000 between us - ironic when you consider the compensation they've already paid out. You obviously felt this kind of money was small change to those living in "aspirational" East Dulwich. You also said you couldn't help as you didn't "know" the head of housing, as she was new. So what's changed?

As to your comments about the CPZ, where you say: "As for businesses on Grove Vale I'd have thought having more local parking available with commuter parking gone would be of help to them." I'm speechless!

[buddug]

I agree with Carrie's comments about the pavement works around the crossing at the Grove Vale end of Oglander. There's a little lake there when it rains. Pathetic.

Obviously the same quality of Southwark contractors who have consistently bodged and wrecked at my flat!

[James Barber]

Hi pipsky2008,

Depends what informaiton you want.

It may already be in the public domain and I could sign post it for you or acquire it quickly if I request it.

Failing either of those use the Freedome of Information route.

Feel free to email me and I'll give try giving you a more specific steer.

Hi buddug,

Grove Vale pondiong. Sadly, another non housing contractor. I've asked when the mini lakes will be resolved and presume this would be undertaken as snagging issues.

Housing. Talking to Southwark accountants if they could they'd give freeholds away to tenants as technicalyl they show as an asset but in reality they're a liability and give poor service to boot.

As a result of your query I investigated the leaseholder conundrum at length with council officers vs freehold and also delivered and kncked on all leaseholders na tenant doors in East Dulwich ward with my colleagues.

[buddug]

james wrote: "As a result of your query I investigated the leaseholder conundrum at length with council officers vs freehold and also delivered and kncked on all leaseholders na tenant doors in East Dulwich ward with my colleagues."

Well, you didn't bother to tell me that. I take it that was in relation to service charges for bogus repairs, and for everyone to ask to have their service charges broken down for transparency's sake, which they're not at present? I like your idea of asking Southwark accountants to give us the freeholds as holding on to them does not deliver taxpayer value-for-money, making an actual loss to Southwark council, even without the compensation they must pay out. So what did they say - sling your hook, I imagine.

[James Barber]

Hi buddug,

Councils can't give away freeholds despite as we both know and officers do that for 'acquired street properties' it costs the council a lot of money to deliver its freeholder obligations - much more than the nominal ground rent.

They're such a liability that housing associations wouldn't want them.

[buddug]

Er, James. You said: "Talking to Southwark accountants if they could they'd give freeholds away to tenants as technicalyl they show as an asset but in reality they're a liability and give poor service to boot."

But if you already know, as I know (I told you they'd tell you to sling your hook), that councils can't give away freeholds, why are you wasting time talking about it to southwark accountants??

[peterstorm1985]

I wouldn't expect Southwark to be able to 'give' away the freeholds because of the potential for ongoing liability, and the precedent it sets, but why can't they sell them for a nominal amount, eg ?1, where there is a clear economic benefit to the council to get rid of them for next to nothing. If there is a business case, and there are leaseholders prepared to purchase, surely there must be a means to achieve it.

[buddug]

Hi Peterstorm1985. I suggested this to the council actually - to sell freehold to us at a peppercorn price, e.g. ?1. But they said they couldn't as they have a 'duty' to repair and maintain the exterior of these properties, despite the fact all they have ever done to my property (and outrageously they keep saying it is their property, despite the fact I bought it) is wreck the exterior and interior. The real reason is that they are stupid, stubborn, pig-headed, arrogant, reckless of taxpayers' money, spendthrifts, ignorant, short-termists, stupid (did I say that?), profligate, (add your own adjective)....