Jump to content

rollflick

Member
  • Posts

    116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Location

  • Area
    East Dulwich
  1. If the brown bin price had simply gone up with inflation since the first £30 full year charged in 2020/1, it would be just £36 now. Even the paper sacks are going up from £30 to £40 this April, so get in now quick while they are still err a bargain. Bet it will be £100 for the brown bin in 2025! Also worth adding that in Nov 2023, Defra scrapped plans to require councils to collect garden waste for free. Southwark's assertion that it now needs to collect food and garden waste separately because of a forthcoming law turns out to be rubbish: 'An optional garden waste collection will be offered to all households, and councils can choose to co-collect food and garden waste if preferred.' https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consistency-in-household-and-business-recycling-in-england/outcome/government-response Surely it could save some cash if it went back to combined collections? Food waste composts better when mixed with garden waste too.
  2. Errr no and JMK you are clearly way out of your depth. Please stop confusing others besides yourself. It is section 72 that enabled decriminalisation of traffic offences, hence the creation of the wonderfully named Civil Enforcement Officers to replace parking wardens: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/part/6/crossheading/civil-penalties-for-road-traffic-contraventions Yes there will be separate statutory consultation - the clue is in Southwark calling the current round "informal" - but that is basically procedural rather than a vote. As for Rockets asking how CPZs can work if allegedly 68% of local trips are on foot, well at risk of stating the obvious, that still leaves a fair amount of driving. There's lots of peer-reviewed research on the internet about parking management if you are the sort that does your research e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136192092200147X#s0010. That highlights the importance of reducing parking space not simply charging for it and enabling shared mobility, if we are to reduce inequality as well as emissions. Fortunately that is what Southwark is proposing here.
  3. Ah, another great example of how muddled this debate can get. The guidance JMK quotes is about councils taking over enforcement powers from the police - it's not about implementing parking restrictions in the first place. The Mayor's Transport Strategy is required by and underpinned by the GLA Act 1999, so it is statutory. By contrast the guidance JMK quotes is just guidance, as it indeed says in its intro. 😑 There's lots of research about parking management being one of the most effective levers for modal shift, less though than road pricing. In any event, for a successful judicial review, you'd need to show that it was irrational for a council to think it might have that effect. Any competent lawyer would run a mile from trying to argue that.
  4. You are assuming they are being advised competently? 🫣 If the council is serious about its targets to reduce motor traffic etc. significantly by 2030, it's obvious that 2hr long parking restrictions targetted at commuters are not going to be effective, especially as less of the driving post-pandemic is people commuting. Yet the consultation still talks about "Reducing traffic by reducing people driving into Southwark", as if it's simply about outsiders. A lot of people aren't going to agree whatever happens, but at least give people the relevant information so we can try having an honest, informed conversation. Also there will particularly need to be longer hours of restrictions (not least on weekends) on Lordship Lane etc. Buses increasingly are getting delayed trying to squeeze past ever wider cars on streets designed using dimensions of horses and carts.
  5. "statutory protocols"? Err no such thing. There will be a statutory consultation later but it's not a vote. Rather you can try providing informed comment as to how Southwark might meet climate, air quality, road safety etc. targets without parking controls and significant reductions in car use and ownership they will help deliver. The council seems to have finally woken up about how its performance was second worst across London in the last decade - see attached image from p10 of this report. It now needs to take action. Good luck, you'll need it.
  6. Actually it would be unlawful for Southwark NOT to implement CPZs across all of its roads. One of the areas where this debate has become so muddled is in asking what Southwark's mandate is. In London, the Mayor is responsible for transport, with the boroughs' role limited to implementation of the Mayor's Transport Strategy. Southwark's Local Implementation Plan was only approved after it was strengthened (an earlier draft was heavily criticised) to include motor traffic reduction measures including borough wide CPZs, in order to meet climate, air quality, road safety, public transport etc. targets. Southwark now has a legal duty to get on with implementation: 151 Implementation by a London borough council. (1) Where the Mayor has approved a local implementation plan, or a local implementation plan as proposed to be revised, submitted to him under section 146(1) above, the London borough council which submitted the plan— (a) shall implement the proposals contained in it https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/section/151 Of course you can try voting for that Susan lady, the one who's a fan of Boris, Liz and Donald, to get rid of Sadiq next year. But she has more chance of getting in that a legal challenge succeeding.
  7. Rockets, attached is the TfL feedback off Twitter. TfL has previously criticised Southwark for multiple reasons, including in 2019 a total lack of governance and prioritisation. While pretty much all other boroughs had formal oversight from their cabinets / committees over their funding bids to TfL, there was no governance again in 2023 for Southwark's bid. If there was any coherent or competent planning, it would have been obvious that there was no justification spending so much money (£1.8m) on a fancy junction redesign, especially after recent spending on the permanent concrete planters, and the major rejig of the junction a few years before that. It is cock-up rather than conspiracy - incompetent officers plus councillors that are incapable of holding officers accountable on behalf of their electors. Rockets - still waiting for positive suggestions on how to make Turney Road attractive for all ages to cycle.
  8. According to local cllr McAsh, whose portfolio has just expanded to streets, taking that from faltering Cllr Rose, the council now is: "implementing an accelerated controlled parking zone roll-out with the aim of achieving 100% coverage by August 2024", i.e. across the whole borough: I am more of a fan of CPZs than many on here. Parking restrictions will really help the buses on much of Lordship Lane so long as designed well (though the Nunhead CPZ could be designed much better for buses). But really the council should: 1) be clear in consultations that this is what it's planning on CPZs and that the consultation is just about the details, otherwise it's misleading. 2) improve alternatives at the same time - it is falling far behind other inner London boroughs on integrated delivery, almost all the others have published coherent Borough Healthy Streets Delivery Plans while Southwark consults on waffle like "Prioritise equity in all transport schemes so everyone can achieve their potential". There will always be disagreements on transport & parking issues, but it's made unnecessarily worse by how incompetent our council is compared to its peers and that our cllrs are unable to be honest about this or much else.
  9. Like ants, better to prevent access to the food source, as Penguin68 says with bags, than to try to poison them. Just had a few appear again this season. After finding nematodes worked really well for a bad year of slugs / snails, I'm intrigued by parasitic wasps. Has anyone tried them? https://www.pestfreegardening.co.uk/products/clothes-food-moth-control-with-trichogramma
  10. The decision doesn't have anything to do with DfT funding, as there's a separate process in London. Rather, as I posted above, Southwark bid more from TfL for this scheme than for all schemes across the rest of the borough, so TfL rejected it. Read what you want into that about officers seeking to splurge on public realm to placate the shrill voices of Dulwich drivers over the needs of the rest of the borough. Rockets makes bizarre assertions about this simply being a route to access the Velodrome, despite me pointing out this links to Lambeth's Rosendale Road cycle route, and also the so-called, alleged "cycling community". According to the latest DfT statistics, about 28% of Southwark residents cycle more than monthly and 20% more than weekly https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/walking-and-cycling-statistics-cw. Those figures would increase far more if conditions were safer by routes like this. There is no driving community, walking community or bus riding community. Yes some people like car races, walking tours/marathons, bus magazines, and cycle races but they are a tiny proportion of people who regularly get about by these different means. Given the lack of concern about children's health (or indeed futures) on here, the amount of whataboutism is hardly surprising. The facts are the problems of obesity, climate change and air pollution (increasingly now from tyre, brake & road wear) have grown so much that we need to use multiple tools. In any event motor traffic reduction is one of the most effective for all these e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653522015624 on particulates https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/alert/walking-cycling-to-school-linked-healthier-body-weight/ on active travel reducing obesity Does anyone actually have suggestions on making Turney Road appealing for all ages to cycle on, other than a road closure?
  11. This is a shame as Lambeth is finally moving forward on extending the cycle route along Rosendale Road: https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/better-fairer-lambeth/projects/healthy-route-brockwell-park-gipsy-hill The Turney Road scheme would have created an appealing cycle route for all ages on the missing link between there, Dulwich, Green Dale etc. But now it's back to the drawing board, for a scheme that some vocal local drivers have been objecting to since 2015. In those eight years no one has come up with an alternative that would credibly meet the objectives of creating a coherent route, meeting safety standards and cutting motor traffic. Saying that we need a "better design" is not going to magically change the fact there is no alternative given the road's geometry. Unless you mean trying to drive the cycle route via the junction outside Herne Hill station instead, which would cause a lot more inconvenience for all due to the complex signal phases required. The underlying problem here is that Southwark bid for £1.8m for this scheme from TfL, more than the rest of all other measures it bid for put together. Besides being yet another example of its terrible financial planning and prioritisation, officers haven't learned from the flaws of the first junction redesign, which demonstrated the importance of trialling measures with temporary materials first. Also there is no need to apply to DfT to designate the road for public events and has not been since this case in 1999 clarified the public's right to use public highway: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990304/jones01.htm
  12. It's about £5 a day or just £2.50 for 5 hour visits, once you've used up the initial 10 reduced price visitor permits. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/parking-permits/on-street-permits/visitor-s-parking-permits Yes I find it difficult to believe the costs of plumbers etc. these days, but this works out as a tiny amount like 1 or 2 per cent extra for a boiler service, while helping reduce congestion etc. through modal shift. That said there are already plumbers on bikes: https://www.treehugger.com/uk-plumber-conducts-business-by-cargo-bike-5188214 And, as the roll out of low traffic and parking zones continues across Southwark, we'll see ever more bike-based businesses in our borough appear in directories like this: https://broughtbybike.com/
  13. The petition is hilarious, it states "Active travel should of course be encouraged but again the CPZ proposal does not appear to have any relevance to active travel. Congestion charge and ULEZ already means that people use vehicles sparingly and considerately so again the proposed CPZ will not impact on this." Great that it doesn't want to be seen to oppose active travel but both these assertions are nonsense. C charge doesn't apply south of New Kent Road while almost all vehicles here already comply with ULEZ and there's still lots of traffic: by contrast a CPZ does discourage both driving and ownership. Also as shown on so many other Southwark streets once a CPZ goes in there are fewer cars parked, dramatically so in many cases. That makes streets far nicer to walk and cycle on, even before space is then reused for bike parking, benches and parklets. Anyway it's too late to challenge as Southwark has committed to a whole borough CPZ by 2025 in its (transport) local implementation plan and it is now legally required to deliver this: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/section/151 The consultation is an important opportunity to consider the location of restrictions and hours of operation of the CPZ to help meet the borough's climate and air quality targets.
  14. It's staggering how much better - as in clearly presented, easier to view on small/old screen, transparent, honest - Lambeth's consultation for a West Dulwich CPZ is than Southwark's for a Nunhead CPZ. Compare https://westdulwich.commonplace.is/proposals/controlled-parking-zone/step1 with https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/nunheadcpz2022/ Whatever your views on parking, LTNs etc - and clearly we'll never see consensus here on those! - can't we all agree that better consultation is needed, that our useless council really needs to pull its socks up and that it really shouldn't be hard for it to learn from others?
  15. It's been Southwark policy since at least its 2011 transport plan to discourage driving through parking charges, the problem is the CPZ consultations are misleadingly framed around questions like "do you find it hard to park your car?" rather than "we've committed to discourage traffic through managing parking, how best to set fees and restrictions to achieve this?". Southwark is legally required to follow the Mayor's (as in Sadiq) Transport Strategy - and Southwark's current local implementation plan, which it has a legal duty to implement, commits to borough wide CPZs by 2025. There are new CPZ consultations for QR Peckham & Nunhead that yet again fail to mention this. Anyway compared to Islington where annual permit is going up to £860 for the most polluting cars and Lambeth where it will be up to £500, Southwark is yet again failing to live up to its promises about doing all it can for the environment, such as by discouraging the vehicles with the biggest impacts through graduated charges. https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?id=8414&LLL=0 Reducing parking is important not just to cut pollution but also replacing asphalt with trees and planting to absorb heat and flash flooding as 40C summers become common. East Dulwich is a particular hotspot where this needs to happen urgently. e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62243280. Other boroughs have been investing parking revenue in climate adaptation for a decade.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...