first mate

ED, What is your source for those Club Car stats?

"banning all petrol engine cars in London is not practical andwould requires billions in scrappage scheme - it's quicker,cheaper and easier to just restrict journeys of ALL cars." But a central driver of CPZ , say the council, is to "incentivise" people to give up their cars (including electric cars) by charging according to weight and size. Now, if the aim is relinquishment of vehicles this implies the charges will be made to really, really hurt, so much so that people will have to get rid of their cars. What then happens to all those cars? If lots of people don't get rid of their cars won't all of this been for nothing? Or is it really the case that the council have found a great 'green' rationale with which to maximise revenue but secretly they do not expect a huge number to relinquish their vehicles? Which is it, do you think? Also, the council say they intend to get behind a big increase in club car vehicles, so won't that partly offset any private cars relinquished? In regard to woodburners, this is something the council say they are looking at, as they are disproportionately responsible for air pollution. No doubt the same is true for bbqs but woodburners are something this council are looking at.

So Dulwich Clean Air have already had a heads-up? How did they get to hear about it?

There is some fudging around going on for sure. There are plans to massively extend a club car offering, so those cars will take the place of some private cars. Rows of lime bikes and e-scooters are hardly 'pretty'. Bike hangars, again to be massively extended are not pretty either. The whole aesthetics point is a red herring. The streets will not be prettier, just a different type of ugly. Whether they are cleaner and the air purer remains to be seen. Thanks for this LA. Really useful as ever. Cllr Mc Ash is something of a weasel then, as he was so clear before about being led by residents on CPZ etc.

Going back to the elderly and vulnerable aspect, it is a lot to organise and we all know technology can be sketchy. It just adds another layer of complexity for people who probably have enough to deal with. I find it really distasteful that Southwark want to charge Blue Badge holders.

@CPR Dave, yep, that is the MO, the CPZ domino or snowball effect. Get a few roads to say yes and then those next to those roads who take the displaced traffic ask for it and so on.

EA how will controlled parking make it easier for disabled people? There is already enough space for them to park but you want to impose permits and charge them large sums of money so to do. Because they need to use their cars more frequently they will have to spend more. Additionally, some may require visits from carers, nurses, physios, support from family- all of which will incur further charges. On top of that they will incur the same charges as the rest of us for visiting trades, house maintenance etc.. Even if they have a Blue Badge ( and those are increasingly difficult to get) this council still want to charge them. Everything turns on the notion that parking round here is scarce. Fact, it isn't. The council have tried every which way to create parking pressure, I grant you, but at this point, in this part of the borough people can still park. Please, please try to understand that not every vulnerable or disabled person can use an e-bike. CPR thanks for getting all this. A great reminder of how slippery the council has been.

Has anyone described OD itself as a stakeholder? Residents organisations might be described as stakeholders. Residents en masse are stakeholders, obviously. OD suggest some 2000 residents support the questions OD are currently asking. It may be of interest to observe that Southwark council are driving a massive borough-wide agenda to impose CPZ on all, on the basis of 48% of 1025 respondents, many of them do not live in Southwark. On that basis we should not be surprised that James McAsh agreed to meet with OD and give them a hearing, as unlike the above, respondents do seem to live not only in Southwark but locally. As you say, I am sure he is also meeting with other groups and so he should.

Well, for example, the lobby group Southwark Cyclists are very chummy with councillors and it used to be the case that on their website you could see letters and messages between Councillors and SC advising further actions and congratulations on actions taken, suggesting regular dialogue was at play. And, by the way, a member of that lobby group who is active on this forum has a background in PR. In addition, the way Cllr Williams and Cllr Rose took every opportunity to politicise and attack at the meeting with Clive Rates, pretty much deflecting from the reasonable questions posed, did not indicate a council with an open door, prepared to listen to views or evidence that do not "align" with theirs.

The Movement Plan document is cited below. You had to be signed up to Southwark social media or a newsletter or on the New Southwark Plan mailing list to even know about this. How many of us even know of the existence of the latter? Who is on that mailing list? This all feels like a council/ political version of insider trading. I don't care if other councils are up to the same shenanigans, it does not make it right. Quite how anyone can call themselves a socialist and resort to these undemocratic tactics is beyond me. Essentially a massive change to local infrastructure, affecting the lives of everyone has been kept hidden from public scrutiny. How on earth can the council justify borough wide CPZ based on a response of just over a thousand people with only 48% from within the borough? They know that last time round 65% of respondents from within ED alone were firmly against CPZ. "We received a total of 1,025 responses through the online Consultation Hub, street surveys and working with the Young Advisors. We received 8 responses from our stakeholders. The consultation was predominantly promoted via Southwark’s social media channels as well as the quarterly Southwark Life and email newsletter and the New Southwark Plan mailing list. Surveys An online survey was available on the council’s Consultation Hub. The survey was designed to uncover the personal experience of travelling in the borough and targeted at people who live, work and study in Southwark. We reached 689 people. Street surveys where undertaken in January 2019 using a shortened version of the online survey. We reached 207 people in 7 locations (libraries and leisure centres)."

What is the relevance of this? OD have asked some questions that a number of people would like to see some answers to. The Cabinet member in charge of streets took OD and the questions seriously enough to have a meeting with them. Why do you think a poster on this forum would have access to the number of meetings councillors have had with any groups? I also agree with Heartblock, that attempts to make something of the fact that some OD founders may be Tories and one may have been in PR is a bit so what? I don't know if that is the case, but if it is it does not invalidate interest in and support for the questions they are asking. Even in the HOC members across the parties can find common ground on single issues.

It felt a little like Cllr Williams took advantage of his position as Chair. Not a good look. As for Cllr Rose, banging her hand on the table to make her points and spouting phrases like "I am sorry you are not aligned", and "mansplaining", it all seemed quite aggressive and defensive. Listening carefully to her answers, for the most part they were not specific to the questions about Calton Rd, but a generalised and self congratulatory word salad about her great work in the borough. My overall feeling was this is not a group of people who have any intention of truly listening to perspectives that do not "align" with theirs.

Ah, so a consultation that was not really a consultation as the biggest stakeholder of all- local residents- were not consulted en masse. This is all so slippery and anti democratic.

What's the source? That sounds most unlikely. I think we'd all remember taking part in a consultation of that nature, especially with a result that was in favour! Funny how we all remember the ED CPZ consultation which was overall not in favour.

I agree. Definitely more cycling on pavements going on, including on those without dedicated cycle paths. In an earlier post elsewhere, someone observed that cycling on pavements had been more or less decriminalised. If cyclists begin to feel more 'entitled' about cycling on any pavement then, yes, there will be more injuries.

One minute you seem to argue permits are so affordable meaning people won't give up their cars. In order for people to be incentivised to relinquish their cars you have to admit that permit prices will have to be hiked by quite a way then, to make them unaffordable? Which is it? Club cars are still going to take up a part of that the freed up road space, sounds like Cllr Rose had quite big plans in that direction. So all a bit circular in a way. EA it's not an entitlement it is the product of years and years of societal and infrastructure change. You cannot just snap your fingers and change it all overnight which is rather what this feels like. I also don't know if you did not see or just chose to ignore Pugwash' post above yours. There are very good reasons why sections of society rely on vehicle use and please don't, like some others on here, patronise by referring to elderly or disabled people you know who manage perfectly well on their e-bike. Great if they can but many cannot.

The cost of many things will go up. Any kind of building work, maintenance, visitors... So in a cost of living crisis Southwark Labour are doing their utmost to load on more costs for everyone.

Cllr Rose stated that the whole raison d'etre for CPZ is to "incentivise" car owners to give up their cars. Therefore, even if the costs seem reasonable and affordable to you now Mal, the assumption has to be that they will keep raising permit and parking prices until people sell their cars, or their stated reason for doing this will have failed. The other point is will there be less cars? Rose said they would use space freed up by private cars to build a much greater club car offering. So not sure there will necessarily be less cars. What there will be is a greater opportunity for the council to monetise public space, a bit like Rose wants to do with our parks.

In the same scrutiny session Rose alludes to a challenging meeting with Nunhead residents on CPZ. She says the meeting very well attended. However, despite this resistance the stated intention is to plough on, indeed, Rose says she is determined to see the changes implemented. No mandate, forced changes residents do not want. This is not democracy. As a complete aside, I see Cllr McAsh now describes himself as socialist and not marxist...

Watch from 44.24. Catherine Rose explains how they intend to collect car data to be able to charge according to weight and size of car. She acknowledges that electric cars are heavier, so don't think owning one will save you from charges. Later in this section she alludes to the difficulties of bringing residents over to accept CPZs. She also talks about 'when' the whole borough is CPZ, not "if". She says that it will be easier to collect car data and refine charges once everyone is paying for a permit. If you can be bothered to watch the whole piece, Rose earlier explains that permits and CPZ charges are and will be used to "incentivise" a reduction in car ownership. In short, they intend to charge so heavily you will be forced to give up your car. They also have their sights set on electric cars. Again, there was no mandate for any of this. This was the last session on the subject. The June scrutiny session was cancelled. Suggest we look out for the July session, with Cllr McAsh in the hot seat.

It would be illegal for the council to spray with anything that caused injury to pets. Ask what the weed killer is that is being used and/or raise with your councillor.

In the last scrutiny session in May, when Cllr Rose was still in charge of streets (now Cllr McAsh) borough-wide CPZ was certainly referred to as a matter of 'when' not 'if'. As others say Council has no mandate for this and there has been no consultation since the last in ED where 68% were against.

It may also be worth remembering that Cllr McAsh promised that only streets that wanted CPZ would get CPZ.

Of course ED does not need CPZ. Southwark Council need it. They have multiple environmental and climate related boxes to tick and CPZ helps them do just that while simultaneously providing the perfect greenwashed disguise for their need for revenue. Just remember a council that really, genuinely valued the aforementioned would never consider hiring out its parkland for very large commercial, environmentally polluting events.

I think the HF ones look much nicer. I'm not wild about the lime green colour. I have not tried one yet as have my own non powered bike. Do the Lime bikes give quite a lot of assistance? The attraction is in getting up the significant hills either end of ED😊