first mate

Proof, if proof were needed, that it is all about making money. If you drive in a bus lane that is one thing, but to brush or touch the line and still get fined is altogether different.

Just my own experience, but since these measures I have seen increased traffic in surrounding streets, I honestly feel the only beneficiaries are the able-bodied and wealthy few (including, I believe some councillors) who wanted their own little car-free sector. It seems to me they have put in every possible intervention to achieve that aim...it is almost like a gated community. There used to be queues of cars at rush hour, but never for long and always manageable. The junction worked, in my view. Problems occurred when there was building work or roadworks. I have noticed absolutely no difference or extra benefit to when I walk or cycle. For when I have to use a car, I still use one. I do not make fewer journeys as a result of these interventions, they simply take longer and use more petrol.

I would venture that guidance is different from a recommendation. Perhaps the former is about existing policy and the latter about what the council would like to happen. Rather like the council recommended borough-wide CPZ but then had to back down from it. Wherever they are placed, high PTALS seem to be one of the conditions the council has stated for prioritising an LTN and I would think there are more high PTALS areas in the north than south of the borough. The real question is that given the various conditions the council has outlined for prioritising LTNs, how Dulwich Village ever got one?

Embarrassing to who? What Rockets says in outlining the council agenda on LTNs seems very clear. -For Dulwich Village LTN -What evidence of poor air quality? -It is low PTAL area and has poor public transport -It has high levels of car ownership (hence council case for imposition of CPZ) -It is not a deprived area -What evidence it impacts positively on a local hospital? -What evidence it impacts positively on local schools? I can only see one condition that is possibly met and that is the last, although we would need hard data to show that.

To make that a reality you would have to block the cyclists whizzing through, many ignoring red lights. I could not think of a worse example to try to illustrate your point, it just does not seem convincing, having witnessed what actually goes on at Dulwich Sq. But Rockets was talking about CPZ wasn't he, Earl. And, as you have kept saying, this is a thread about CPZ. I have already cited the Council's own document on its various interventions where it states what it needs to do to effect its Streets for People initiatives in Dulwich Village and CPZ is one of them. It states it needs to reduce car use and one way is via CPZ.

The Council in its Q&A document, section 15, on Dulwich CPZ and Junction ( it chooses to address both in one document) also states that it has to reduce parking in order to effect its 'Streets for People' 'improvements'. They are linked, whether you like it or not. The Council says they are. Streets for People includes safety- therefore my mention of lollipop handlers, to stop traffic to allow children to cross roads safely. One possible conclusion is that, by their own admission, Southwark need to impose CPZ in order to perpetuate their Streets for People initiative, of which Dulwich Junction is one example.

In its Q&A document in Dulwich Village Junction and CPZ, Southwark Council states in section15., that the purpose of the CPZ 'is to reduce unnecessary car journeys into the borough, while encouraging more sustainable and healthy forms of transport like walking and cycling'. Those are the points they mention first, so while I am sure a good lawyer can argue that this is really just another way of talking about parking pressure, they are justifying CPZ in a very different way, to my mind. As we know, local residents do not think there is parking pressure that would justify CPZ. Quite, what about the good old lollipop lady? Cheaper surely than reconfiguring a road, CPZ, LTNs or even a school street.

No it is not what I think but what the results of the recent CPZ consultation showed. The majority were very clearly against a CPZ and did not feel it necessary. Surely they are the best judge of traffic levels in their neighbourhood? I am talking about CPZ?! Despite clear results against CPZ it has been imposed by the council anyway. Why? Although in their guidance they more or less flagged they would go ahead indicating consultation is just a box ticking exercise. I do think of the huge upfront investment they made last year in CPZ infrastructure and personnel (cameras, wardens etc.. running to millions). That was before they backed down on a borough-wide CPZ, but I do wonder if that is partly the motivation now? Improvement is in the eye of the beholder. For instance, no doubt you and Southwark Council view Dulwich Sq and the new CPZ as improvements. As you must be aware, not everyone shares that view.

It is all quite convoluted but I believe parking surplus derived from CPZ can be used to make improvements to the public realm and environment. I guess it depends on definitions, but reducing pollution and improving air quality ( alleged by- products of CPZ) is arguably about the environment.

But the majority of residents in the area CPZ consultation have no problems parking and prior to Dulwich Sq no problems shopping ( for some access is now a bigger issue). It was possible to limit the CPZ to that road where parking was an issue - mostly I believe down to school students parking. But many residents have also complained about issues with diesel-powered school coaches parking.

Earl said: "The CPZ, is about tackling concerns (repeatedly raised by residents) about inconsiderate and unsafe parking-related issues, linked to local schools, amongst other things." Raised it seems by a minority of residents, the wishes of the majority being ignored- as per the recent council consultation. The council could have chosen to put a CPZ on just one street where residents had concerns, but it decided to increase the CPZ. Why? We should also point out that the council's stated aim is to use CPZ to reduce car journeys. In this area, which is low ptals, what is the council doing to increase and improve public transport- not everyone can cycle or walk?

I had understood from Ex D that funding for Dulwich Square came partly from Safer Streets? Are you saying that funding for Dulwich Square was not from that source? Or was there a need to reduce street crime at that junction, hence the funding? Guess I am trying to understand how that small bit of reconfigured road qualified for safer streets funding, given you say the programme is only about crime? Not only that, how does this reconfiguration reduce crime? Again, the 'finished' Square seems to have been timed to be ready for the new Dulwich CPZ, so journeys are not only longer but locals will also have to pay more to make them if they have to use a car.

Nothing then from a Section 106 re the adjacent development? Interesting about the Safer Streets Fund- it will be interesting to see how much safer that junction is, given concerns about cyclists using pedestrian areas. Thanks Dulwich Way for your informed input. Lots of useful detail. I think we now need to know more about how CPZ/ parking surplus is to be spent in Southwark. For reasons already stated, I'd imagine there'll be plenty of it.

What about Dulwich Square, where did the funding for that come from? I should remind you that the finishing touches to that were effected just weeks ago, just in time for the new, but unwanted Dulwich CPZ.

Clearly there is surplus, else how are these other projects funded (Dulwich Square, for example). In that latter case, it is a balance between a space for children to play in and enjoy 'fresher' air ( if that can be proven, which I doubt, so that point is very hypothetical, plus those same children are also bang next to a number of very large and green spaces where they can play) against forcing cars, many on necessary journeys, to take longer routes and massively inconveniencing a number of other residents, a number with limited mobility in a low ptals area, to also take longer journeys. And, all those journeys quite probably increase, if not outweigh, any hypothetical 'improvement' in air quality.