former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[Guest]

I do it while listening to the Archers on my headphones. Does that make it any better?

[the-e-dealer]

Yes that sounds total sane! But this would mean you can only collect litter in the winter!

[gsirett]

> That is completely unreasonable. The whole point

> of a vote, is that people vote for what they

> believe. James doesn't have to vote with the

> majority!

I'm sorry, I thought he was meant to "represent" the people of East Dulwich. Oh, silly me.

[Guest]

the-e-dealer Wrote:

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

> Yes that sounds total sane! But this would mean

> you can only collect litter in the winter!

Just have to go out a bit later. Wouldn't want anyone to see me in my Marigolds.

[James Barber]

Hi grisett,

But you're a Village ward resident.

I've had lots of East Dulwich ward residents and some businesses tell me they want controlled parking. I've had some say they don't. I've seen lots of comments on this forum but most of the East Dulwich ward residents who live on the conusltated streets I've spoken to say they're angry about the forum but didn't want to get tangled up in the CPZ thread.

[the-e-dealer]

So this is one thing James isn't going to Stop?

[gsirett]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi grisett,

> But you're a Village ward resident.

> I've had lots of East Dulwich ward residents and

> some businesses tell me they want controlled

> parking. I've had some say they don't. I've seen

> lots of comments on this forum but most of the

> East Dulwich ward residents who live on the

> conusltated streets I've spoken to say they're

> angry about the forum but didn't want to get

> tangled up in the CPZ thread.

Oh, I get it, your anecdotal conversations now take priority over the official consultation on the subject....hmmmmm.

Well, I've SPOKEN to lots of people who are firmly against a CPZ....do their views count?

Oh, and yes, "a village ward resident" - that will get people against him! He's an outsider ! How dare he!

At least you've moved away from your stratergy of saying that I was "somebody who wanted to park his car across somebody elses drive".

James: I live on Trossachs Road (which you know), it is c.100-150 metres from the edge of the proposed CPZ. Like many 100's of people, I am a stakeholder in this community, and I feel that a CPZ will not deliver it's objectives. Are you implying (again) that such people don't have a say on the CPZ and its effect on our community ?

Actually: you fail to mention....how many EAST DULWICH WARD residents have you spoken to who object to this CPZ? Do tell.

[buddug]

James wrote: "I've had lots of East Dulwich ward residents and some businesses tell me they want controlled parking. I've had some say they don't."

I can't believe it! He's spinning again. "I've had lots" for and "some" against. This is beyond shameful James. Your wording deliberately implies most are for CPZ, when the figures clearly show, and you have admitted it, that the majority are against. You are really digging your own grave here.

[DJKillaQueen]

I have to say...either the results of a consultation count for something or they don't. The message from the consultation seems loud and clear to me so I don't personally think claiming there is more support than there actually is, is helpful. I have to say that at the moment it seems as though you are not willing to accept the findings of the consultation James.

[James Barber]

Hi DJKQ,

I agree. The consultation was of 22 streets and whether they wanted to have paid controlled parking or not and it was clear the consultation would be considered on a street by street basis. It also asked residents if they'd change their mind if a neighbouring street were to proceed.

All the streets in South Camberwell ward were against. Currently I'm almost jealous of those Councillors. Nice at decision.

Several street in East Dulwich ward were for or I vapour our if neighbouring street were planned to proceed - fear of displacement.

So if it had been a referendum then yes a clear no result.

So I hear loud cries of fowl from either camp - the no camp being clearly much larger and so far louder.

If we vote no on Tuesday then residents on some sreets can legitimately claim the Consultation was rigged saying it said the results would be used on a street by street basis and that they hadn't been.

Hi buddug,

Are you really surprised that as an Easy Dulwich ward councillor I've had my constituents contacting me in the way and proportions described. Clearly email bag of other ward Councillors will have different proportions.

[gsirett]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi DJKQ,

> I agree. The consultation was of 22 streets and

> whether they wanted to have paid controlled

> parking or not and it was clear the consultation

> would be considered on a street by street basis.

> It also asked residents if they'd change their

> mind if a neighbouring street were to proceed.

> All the streets in South Camberwell ward were

> against. Currently I'm almost jealous of those

> Councillors. Nice at decision.

> Several street in East Dulwich ward were for or I

> vapour our if neighbouring street were planned to

> proceed - fear of displacement.

> So if it had been a referendum then yes a clear no

> result.

>

> So I hear loud cries of fowl from either camp -

> the no camp being clearly much larger and so far

> louder.

> If we vote no on Tuesday then residents on some

> sreets can legitimately claim the Consultation was

> rigged saying it said the results would be used on

> a street by street basis and that they hadn't

> been.

>

> Hi buddug,

> Are you really surprised that as an Easy Dulwich

> ward councillor I've had my constituents

> contacting me in the way and proportions

> described. Clearly email bag of other ward

> Councillors will have different proportions.

James. I am sorry but you are talking twaddle again:

The consultation document did NOT make it clear that this was to be street-by-street consiltation, the proposal that southwark put out showed a clearly defined provisional design: a big red line around the area.

[peckhamboy]

James, the consultation made it clear that it was a consultation of an area, not 22 individual consultations. Only two streets were in favour. 2 or 3 streets were marginally in favour IF a CPZ were brought in on the street next to them. None of those streets are next to the two streets in favour - so to justify including the "yes if" streets, you would first have to impose a CPZ on a street that was a definite "no". In my opinion, that represents an unethical solution and potentially abuse of process.

Whilst I appreciate that you want to do something to help the two streets who are in favour, and you are politically pre-disposed towards a CPZ for whatever reason, there are some very important questions to be answered in coming to a decision:

- Given the impact of a CPZ on surrounding streets, is it proportionate to introduce one based on only two streets (out of 22 consulted) being in favour?

- Given the fairly huge majority in favour of no CPZ, in whose interest would it be for a CPZ be introduced?

- In all the circumstances, is a CPZ the only or the best solution, or simply the only solution that has been considered?

- If the support for a CPZ in the ward is as strong as you suggest, why did so few people respond favourably when you consulted them?

I'm sure there are plenty more but this will do as a starter for ten...

[buddug]

James wrote: "Are you really surprised that as an Easy Dulwich ward councillor I've had my constituents contacting me in the way and proportions described."

I'm speechless. So when you posted: I've had lots" for and "some" against the CPZ you really meant it! Well yes, I am surprised, considering the majority of people in your ward voted against. Really really surprised.

[DJKillaQueen]

I haven't seen the consultation documents so will have to go by the comments of those who have.

the consultation made it clear that it was a consultation of an area, not 22 individual consultations

If the above as posted by peckhamboy is true, then how can you claim otherwise James? It seems clear to me whichever way the consultation is looked at, that if 20 out of 22 streets said no, then that is a resounding no. It matters because if the consultation was on an area rather than street by street, then you can't go ahead with a CPZ for two streets only, without a further consultation on the impact of that for local residents. It's not ok for the council to move the goalposts if they don't like the result. So you need to establish that it was on a street by street basis James if that view is to be taken as correct.

I would very much like to see the original consultation document if anyone has a link.

[Siduhe]

Here you go:

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2877/grove_vale-controlled_parking_zone_study

Will send you a pm too.

[DJKillaQueen]

ok found it.......

Personally I think it's vague. The document refers to a ZONE but says the following

'This is your opportunity to decide if you would now

like your street to become a CPZ. The inclusion of your

road will be based on several factors including support

from local residents and businesses, parking survey

results and the need to create a clear and logical CPZ

boundary.'

This paragraph contradicts itself because on the one hand it seems to say a street can become a CPZ in itself but on the other hand suggests that road would be seeking to be included in a greater scheme or zone.

Then it goes on to say

'We will analyse all the responses on a street by

street basis and report the draft findings and

recommendations to the community council, which

you are welcome to attend.'

This simply means that the findings would be presented in that form of detail.

For my money the consultation does not make it clear James and I would say that depending on how the council uses the results to make their decision, there may be grounds to claim the consultation was flawed if certain arguments are presented for going against the findings of it.

[gm99]

The language is clearly inconsistent and therefore problematic. E.g. the early part of the CPZ study document talks about a/the CPZ (singular), while the consultation asked respondents whether they 'would you change their minds' if a neighbouring street wanted a CPZ, which suggests something more piecemeal (you wouldn't ask that if the CPZ was all or nothing).

More broadly, it seems to me that some people want to have their cake and eat it, claiming that the consultation was not a referendum, but then using the results of individual streets to indicate that they should get a CPZ - which sounds a lot like a street-by-street referendum. [Why not go the whole hog and simply allow residents to pay for a dedicated parking space outside their house if they want one? (Yes I know, what about flats, big/small houses etc... this is a straw man not a serious suggestion).]

Fundamentally, the methodology used to elicit the views of residents was not sufficiently robust to draw any valid (in the technical statistical sense) conclusions as to what the residents of individual streets and/or the whole area collectively want. A c.20% response rate and (acknowledged) non-random self-selection bias clearly demonstrate that.

For me, this is why the process is a consultation not a referendum, and ultimately someone has to weigh up *all* of the evidence and make a decision - and why haggling over alternative options after the fact is, in my opinion, wholly inappropriate (not least because you can't know how such alternative options might have changed respondents' opinions if offered upfront).

What a mess.

[milk76]

Let's be clear, on Derwent Grove, where the parking problems are currently terrible, twice the average number of votes were cast in the consultation and two to one in favour of parking controls. How much clearer does it need to be.

Give Derwent a cpz at least for a trial peroid PLEASE!

[Loz]

Milk76 - would you still be in favour of a CPZ in your street if it meant that - as a CPZ permit holder - you were disqualified from parking in any other residential street in ED? After all, why should we share our parking with you if you won't share with us? Why should you be able to park on the next street when your street is full, as it will be?

[Huguenot]

Why do the CPZ protagonists, who have their own thread, insist on wrecking the other areas of the forum like a diarrhoea sufferer shitting on the football pitch, the cricket pitch, somebody else's picnic and your own effing Sunday lunch in the pub?

[easytiger]

Why does a person who lives in Singapore continually antogonizes people on this forum on different subjects?

Let the people that live in the area to discuss with emotion.

Or start your own thread on issues in your city.

Zimples.

[milk76]

Loz

Yes absolutely. Ban me from parking on all other residential streets for one hour, at lunchtime, Monday to Friday. That works just fine. No commuters parking all day and residents will still be able to use their cas to drop off the kids and get the heavy loads of shopping and park back near their own front doors.

Derwent has overwhelmingly clearly voted for this on it.

[BrandNewGuy]

milk76 Wrote:

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

> Loz

>

> Yes absolutely. Ban me from parking on all other

> residential streets for one hour, at lunchtime,

> Monday to Friday. That works just fine.

But you're still happy to pay for all that to be administered, yes? After all, the people in the neighbouring streets who don't want and wouldn't have a CPZ can't be expected to pay to make sure you don't evade the ban you're happy about.

[milk76]

Brandnewguy.

I don't and have not advocated universal parking restriction.

As you well can see I was simply addressing Loz's premise. I believe each street should be able to choose for itself democratically. As Derwent clearly has.

[Otta]

After all, why should we share our

parking with you if you won't share with

us?

But if there is no CPZ, then it's not yours or anybody else's to share.