MarkT

Rofflick writes: "After road/congestion charging, parking controls and charges are the most effective means to cut motor traffic, and with it air pollution and CO2 emissions." The Council's Transport Plan Annual Monitoring Report 17-18 seems to indicate otherwise. It states: "While the aim of increasing parking controls is to dissuade private car ownership, other forms of transport that are replacing this must be acknowledged. This includes on-demand services, such as Uber, and car rent options such as car clubs. Zipcar is one such club and the data presented shows a rapid increase in use over the last five years. This shows that there are alternatives in Southwark to traditional forms of transport and that they are growing ? and will continue to grow ? at a fast rate." It reports 135% increase in individual zip car registrations in 5 years, 47% of that in the last year. while "car ownership fluctuating between 56.500 and 59,000 over the last 7 years" "The greatest decrease (in car ownership) has been observed in the light goods category". The last point, of course, means locally resident tradespeople are being driven out of business. Local work still needs to be done, but presumably by tradespeople driving in from out of town. MarkT

Like this one? /forum/read.php?20,2053112

Southwark's Constitution does indeed have a general threshold of 5 objections for decision by the Planning Committee. They have increased this threshold over years while simultaneously reducing their requirement for notifying potentially interested parties. As Kiera pointed out above: "Most people probably didn't know anything about it until after the council had given themselves permission to fell the two mature and healthy oak trees." Surely the objection from the London Wildlife Trust should have been given some weight, not just 1 of 3 objections. Southwark's Constitution includes in the Planning Sub-Committee's duties: "To consider the confirmation of tree preservation orders which are the subject of a sustained objection (a ?sustained objection? is defined as an objection that is maintained despite an attempt by officer to resolve it, or which officer consider incapable of resolution by negotiation)" Did the objectors accept the decision to destroy these trees? If not then the matter should have been decided by the Planning Sub-Committee. The Planning Committee must also consider: "applications for the council?s own developments which are controversial, i.e. subject to 5 or more relevant objections" By limiting the publicity, of course, the Council kept down the number of objections, but it is undoubtedly the council's own development, and is by any other definition "controversial".

The link to the planning application given above by Kiera (Aug 5th) now leads nowhere: "Planning Application details not available This application is no longer available for viewing. It may have been removed or restricted from public viewing" Surely that is out of order, as the matter is still live - at least while the oak trees are. Was the decision to remove the trees taken by a planning officer or by planning committee? Are there particular rules governing a planning decision by the Council on a Council project? and were those rules properly followed? MarkT

Happyduck, Are you questioning: - the size of the bill for a professional visit? - whether an authorised person is required to provide a certificate, or can you do it yourself? - whether battery detectors are acceptable to the Council, or must they be mains-connected, and inter-linked? MarkT

James, you wrote: "Borough-wide CPZ The Southwark Local Implementation Plan 3 states that the council wants to reduce trips made by car/motorbike to 13% by 2041. It further states that introducing a borough-wide CPZ would be a means of achieving this. Personally, I do not think that this is necessary. I think that the council's current policy - to be led by requests from local people - is the right one. But there are 22 years (and 5 local elections!) to discuss this before we reach that deadline. Of course, there are definitely some people who would like to see this happen and want to see it sooner. I am not one of them though - and I will continue to argue in favour of existing policy." James, the 'Final' version of the Local Implementation Plan, surely, is Council Policy. So what instead are you claiming as the 'current','existing', policy? In your earlier response you wrote: "I have looked it into and am still confused by the reference in this document. Cllr Livingstone is looking into it further but assures me that nothing borough-wide is currently planned." If Cllr Livingstone, the Cabinet member with direct individual responsibility for this, is unaware of current policy, then the policy is clearly being defined, not by elected members, but by officers. If it is those policy makers that you say want the Borough-wide CPZ and want it sooner, then I do not find it reassuring that they have scrubbed the date of 2025, and I am unconvinced by your reassurance that they imply instead a target of 2041. If so, your suggestion that the policy might be changed by the outcome of any of the next 5 elections, would seem to be misguided, and your personal view irrelevant.

James, on the subject of the Council?s plan to introduce a borough-wide CPZ: May 6 I quoted Southwark?s Local Implementation Plan, dated October 2018 ?? To enable us to better manage limited space, we will introduce more Controlled Parking Zones with the aim of covering the whole borough by 2025.? May 15th, you responded: MarkT and TheArtfullDogger Thanks for raising this with me. I have looked it into and am still confused by the reference in this document. Cllr Livingstone is looking into it further but assures me that nothing borough-wide is currently planned. Looking at trends across London and other major cities, it is believed that demand for controls will increase over the coming decades but that is not consistent with the 2025 date you quoted. I will find out more and let you know. Hi MarkT Just realised that the document you linked was a consultation document and not the final version. The final version includes no reference to 2025 and instead talks about a general strategy to reduce car use by 13% by 2041. James, I see now that you are correct in that the document I had previously quoted was the draft and not the final version. Southwark?s Local Implementation Plan 3 Final March 2019, states on page 25, Mission 4 Reduce Traffic - How ? ?Introduce Borough wide CPZ? So, Cllr Livingstone assures you that nothing borough-wide is planned. So, you apparently read the relevant section in the final version, noted the removal of the 2025 date, but you did not confirm the retention of the words ?Introduce Borough wide CPZ?. So, between the draft plan published in October 2018, and the final version published in March 2019, the Council carried out an elaborate ?consultation? on local CPZs, promising selective introduction, while the outcome is already determined by the Local Implementation Plan to introduce a Borough wide CPZ. James, in your responses above, you focussed on the date of 2025, which is of course irrelevant to our line of inquiry. The relevant fact, which is now clear to me, if not to you and Cllr Livingstone, that Southwark Council Plans to introduce a Borough-wide CPZ.

Do the ULEZ standards take account of the quantity of emissions per person on board? At the same percentage, the actual amounts of any exhaust component will be greater for a larger engine. Engine capacities of cars are perhaps 10 times the capacities of motorbikes. The average number of persons in a car is probably less than 2, not much more than a bike.

They had to stop the bowling. There's no sport with a higher fatality rate.

The bio-security practices of 1853 described in the opening article are impressive. MarkT

Lemmy, my info above about the Cafe basement is old. I've just asked them. Not there now MarkT

James, ?? To enable us to better manage limited space, we will introduce more Controlled Parking Zones with the aim of covering the whole borough by 2025.? Southwark?s Local Implementation Plan LIP 3 2018 https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/movement-plan/supporting_documents/Southwark%20Local%20Implementation%20Plan%20LIP3_Consultation%20draft.pdf MarkT

Ask in the Cafe facing the Co-op in Lordship Lane. A couple of local musicians were setting up a rehearsal room in their basement a couple of years ago.

LanaJade, put it down to experience. Fight the fights that are worth fighting. I can't imagine that anyone would have an ideological objection to yellow boxes. MarkT

Well, here's a local element - a consultation on Healthy Streets, Dulwich. It includes maps showing location of accidents. MarkT

I mentioned the 20mph limit in my OP, but not to blame it. In the same sentence I mentioned the increased visibility at junctions with double yellow lines. The recent rise in accidents that can be seen in the graphs in the Report needs explanation. I suggest that the affect of the speed reduction measures - the 20mph limit, humps and cushions - has been more than cancelled by the visual opening-up of junctions. In addition, CPZs now covering most of the borough increase passing places. This allows opportunistic and dangerous bursts of speed by the less cautious drivers. In promoting CPZs the Council claims "improved traffic flow". I challenge that as a benefit to road safety. The Conclusion of the Report makes no mention of the recent rise in accidents. I hope that our Councillors will look beyond the complacent flannel and look at the data presented in the graphs. MarkT

Bobbsy, not an unreasonable observation, though I can't see any mention of deliveries in the report, but all forms of deliveries have increased over years. The Report states that the aim of increasing parking controls is to dissuade car ownership, but ownership has been "fluctuating" rather than falling so "There needs to be a focus on a sustained period of decreased car ownership". They state that car ownership is being replaced with Uber, rentals and car-clubs. They note a 135% increase (ie more than double)in zip car membership over 5 years. So that's people driving unfamiliar vehicles, possibly in a rush because they are paying by the hour, but I don't know if there is any evidence of increased danger. While car ownership has fluctuated by about 4%, "The greatest decrease (16%)has been observed in the light goods category". That would mean that they are dissuading resident tradespeople (who of course have to pay a high Commercial/Resident Parking Permit, which then only applies in their home CPZ). That gap of course would be filled by tradespeople driving in from the suburbs.

To play Devil's Advocate, is it possibly a measure to reduce fraud? You are now expecting the actual voting card, and would report if it does not arrive.

Here's a link to the Annual Monitoring Report Dec 18 ?Delivering Southwark?s Transport Plan? file:///C:/Users/mark/Downloads/Southwark%20Transport%20Plan%20Annual%20Monitoring%20Report%202017-18.pdf The Report covers a wide range of transport issues, but as, just a few days ago, I arrived to observe the immediate aftermath of yet another car smash-up on what ought to be a quiet corner in East Dulwich, I will focus here on the Road Safety aspects. I find the Report rather gloomy reading. Targets were set in 2011 and some of the graphs show the target levels. ? KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) numbers on roads had dropped steadily from 2010 until 14-15 then shot back up, doubling from 2016-17, now 50% above target. (page 19) ? Slight casualties, which the Report states shows no clear trend, seems to me to be the highest for 15 years, about 15-20% higher than a low in 2015, having never achieved the target. (page 22) ? Cyclist casualties seem to be steadily rising, doubling since 2004, now 3 times higher than the target. (page 23) ? Pedestrians KSI after falling steadily to a low in 13-15 has doubled from 16-17, returning to pre 2010 levels, above the target. (page 24) The text describes this as a downward trend, with no mention of the recent sudden rise. ? All Casualties (page 17) fell slightly below the target in 2013 but have risen sharply 2015-17 to the 2004 level 25% above target. It seems to me that something has gone seriously wrong since about 2015. That is about the time that the borough wide 20 mph limit was introduced, but isn?t it also the time when they started to increase visibility at junctions with double yellow lines? The Report?s conclusion, I think, is extremely complacent: ?Southwark has achieved or made significant progress towards achieving most of its targets?. One achievement is indeed outstanding. On page 38 the budget shows that from 2012 to 2018, after paying all related costs, the surplus generated from parking charges and fines rose from ?2 million to ?6 million. Over the same period, the item of expenditure ?Road Safety including school Crossing Patrols? has remained static at about a quarter of a million. MarkT

At the start of the consultations for the 2 CPZs - East Dulwich and West Peckham, we were told that the problem was the commuters parking close to East Dulwich Station. Indeed Councillor Livingstone (the Decision Maker) made public statements to that effect. In the West Peckham proposed CPZ it seems to me that the streets against the CPZ are clustered towards the Station and those in favour are those adjoining existing CPZs. Asked would they change their mind if a neighbouring street was made CPZ, the streets that stuck to their opposition are those towards the station and furthest from the existing CPZ. I think it challenges Councillor Livingstone's prejudice. To me it demonstrates the domino effect of CPZs. The parking pressure experienced by residents in the proposed CPZ is not to do with the station but is displacement from the neighbouring CPZ. The CPZ promoters show their carefully selected photos and entreat us to see for ourselves the empty streets of a new CPZ. Of course they are empty - why should all the residents rush to buy their permits when they park for free just down the road.

Lowlander, you ask that people fight a campaign truthfully. You ask: "Where did the '67% of ED residents voted against a CPZ'? figure come from? It might be fairer to say '67% of ED residents are not in favour'." Well perhaps you should read the Report which states: "The overall response showed the majority of those who responded (69%) were against a parking zone," You claim "Unless I'm missing something, people did not vote against a CPZ. They were invited to respond to a consultation." Again, read the Report. The Council allowed one response per person and separately counted addresses within and outside of the zone. Throughout, the Report analysed by numbers. In what way do you think this was not a vote?

The report states on page 2 "More than one response per address was accepted but duplicates removed where the same name was used."

Rosetta, are you now a sole occupant? If there are 2 or more currently in the dwelling, adding another person might create a HMO. The Southwark definition is: "a dwelling that's occupied by three or more people in two or more households (families), who share at least one basic amenity (kitchen, bathroom or toilet)"

Best not to rely on internet hearsay; better to consult the Law. Traffic Management Act 2004 Section 86 states you must not park across a dropped kerb, but gives exceptions including: "where the vehicle is parked outside residential premises by or with the consent (but not consent given for reward) of the occupier of the premises. This exception does not apply in the case of a shared driveway." The Council has the power to put double yellow lines across a dropped kerb thereby cancelling the occupier's right to give permission. The OP does not seem to have the occupier's permission. There must be due process for removing a dropped kerb, but I don't think you can legally assume that it is redundant. It may be needed for emergency access. MarkT

"Providing no vehicle may return to a parking place on that same day" So the parking charges operate for 2 hours - 11am to 1pm. But, even if you pay to park for those 2 hours you can then be fined for staying for more than 2, or returning, any time on the same day, when the parking is free. "no vehicle" includes permit holders, so they could also be fined, for using a shared space twice in a day. That looks like not a 2 hour/5 day but a 24/7 restriction. Would it allow free parking from 1.01pm till midnight? It does, however seem that residents can't totally block the shared-use bay, so along with all the double yellow lines residents are losing quite a lot of parking. MarkT