Deputation to Dulwich Community Council Presented by the Residents of Trossachs, Glengarry, Thorncombe and Tarbert Roads

Thank you for the opportunity to address the Community Council. We are here to represent residents of Trossachs, Glengarry, Thorncombe and Tarbert Roads. We have collected several hundred signatures objecting to the proposed CPZ on these and surrounding streets.

We are here to ask that you support the majority of local people and vote AGAINST a CPZ.

The reason we ask this is twofold:

1. We feel that, for East Dulwich, a CPZ simply will not deliver on its primary stated objective: namely to reduce commuter parking in order to create easier residents parking.

Roads such as ours are only a 6 minute walk from the station and are outside the proposed CPZ.The initial CPZ design would not have stopped people parking at the station, it would simply pushed any commuter parking onto different local roads such as Glengarry, south end of Melborne Grove and Ashbourne Grove, merely moving the problem from one local street to another. This displacement effect is well documented and has been witnessed in other CPZ’s

It is also worth noting that NO analysis has been done to separate any “rail commuters” from people working at local schools, businesses and East Dulwich hospital, who would continue to travel to the area.

This displacement effect, combined with many other negative factors leads us to believe that the CPZ will have an overall negative impact on the local community and will have to spread significantly to address these issues.

2. We feel that Soutwark MUST accept the clear majority view expressed from their own consultation. As residents, we put faith in the consultation process conducted by Southwark. We believed that the objective of a consultation was to listen to the local community and trusted it to do so; a democratic process. People filled out Southwark’s consultation in good faith , expecting Southwark to act in good faith.

The leader of Southwark Council, Peter John wrote to residents on 17th November and said (we quote) “Please be assured that if the objections outweigh support, then a CPZ will not happen. ”

The results of the consultation, we feel, are VERY clear and that objections clearly outweigh support:

• Overall 70% respondents said that “they did not want controlled parking”
• Overall, out of a possible total 1159 possible respondents, only 84 (that’s 7%) responded in favour of the introduction of a CPZ
• 20 out of the 22 streets consulted said they “did not want controlled parking”
• 75% of other recorded correspondence was objecting to a CPZ
• 9 separate petitions accepted by Southwark , recorded 1826 people objecting to a CPZ..........and only 29 people in favour

We believed that this was a VERY clear message: the people of this area DO NOT WANT CONTROLLED PARKING. We have been consulted and we have spoken. This is not about “the people that shout the loudest” getting their way it is about a clear majority of people getting their way: and that is democracy.

However…… despite the majority being opposed to the introduction of a CPZ, we now find Southwark using the fact that residents on 2 specific Roads did not object as a mandate for the introduction of some sort of “modified” CPZ. We would like to put this “mandate” in perspective.......... on Derwent Grove 7 (seven) more people were in favour than opposed a CPZ . On Tintagel Crescent it was 4 (four) more. Are Southwark REALLY prepared to use this majority of only 11 (eleven) people as their mandate to proceed and ignore the wishes of the 70% majority and 2000 petition signatures.

The consultation was surely about the introduction of a CPZ for the area as a whole: small or single Road CPZ’s were not mentioned during the consultation. And now the goal posts seem to have been moved to allow for the possibility of a CPZ to be installed in specific roads. Many people now feel they have been misled.

This leaves us asking this question…… suppose a the majority of roads had actually wanted a CPZ and a only a minority voted against it? Would Southwark be proposing to exclude those roads that voted against the CPZ? We think not. Those residents would most likely be told, that they must abide by the wishes of the majority. And that is exactly what we requesting – for Southwark to abide by the wishes of the majority.

We therefore call on the, democratically elected members of this council to demonstrate to their constituents that they respect democracy and they will honour the commitment made by the leader of THEIR council: “Please be assured that if the objections outweigh support, then a CPZ will not happen ”

We ask that you vote AGAINST a CPZ .