Goose Green councillors - how can we help?

[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.

[rollflick]

James just keeps on digging...unfortunately digging the hole he's in, rather than about the council's decision to continue with introducing garden waste charges despite the govt announcing its plan to ban them in February.

The resident consent policy for CPZs was contained in the 2011 transport policy, which has now been replaced by the 2019 movement plan & LIP3. So it's no longer policy, end of story.

With Southwark's own monitoring showing its progress meeting most of its transport objectives (road safety, air quality etc. etc.) stalling or even going backwards since 2013, it's incredible to hear James suggest the council should keep on twiddling its thumbs, splurging council tax on yet more consultants for traffic studies etc. for 20 years before it might actually need to take real action.

In terms of a CPZ not being necessary to reduce traffic, collisions, air pollution and carbon emissions (don't forget Southwark's pledge to go carbon neutral by 2030), it would be helpful if James could explain what other measures he 'personally' (does that mean this is a matter of faith for him, rather than about evidence?) believes in?

Alternative measures for mode shift & traffic reduction are set out in the guidance to officers on third LIPs available at https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/boroughs/local-implementation-plans

Many of those listed are nice to haves, e.g. Legible London wayfinding signage for walking and delivery collection points, as part of a wider package but won't reduce traffic significantly in themselves. The significant ones are:

-Deliver Cycle Superhighway and Quietway programmes supported by local cycle networks. [NB plans for Lordship Lane to be Superhighway were scrapped, while the Southwark Spine proposals through here were so poor TfL rejected them]

-Expand cycle hire [promised for whole borough in Labour's 2014 manifesto but err...]

-Use filtered permeability [road restrictions] to create low-vehicle zones across inner London.

-Apply the Healthy Streets Approach wherever possible to deliver vehicle-free town centres and local centres accessed by quality bus, cycling and walking routes and served by off-peak freight deliveries.

-Reduce parking across inner London, particularly in town centres and at other major car trip generators. Expand CPZ coverage.

-Local congestion charging options, and workplace parking levies.

-Significant re-allocation of road space to bus and cycle on radial routes, potentially creating some bike- and bus-only corridors.

-Incentivise inner London residents to give up parking on residential streets.

-Increase land use density to enable car-free living.

-Ensure the vehicles that do remain are the cleanest possible, for example, emissions-based parking permits.

-Review local restrictions that prevent night-time deliveries.

-Systematic re-allocation of residential parking to other kerbside activity, including cycle parking.

Southwark's policy is to introduce a CPZ primarily as a traffic and pollution reduction measure. As a matter of law the CPZ consultation ought to have provided an opportunity for people opposed to a CPZ (or wanting a more limited version) to set out alternative means to achieve the same effects, such as from the list above. It didn't do that, the whole thing is total a mess.

[edbloke]

Question for the councillors:

Great to see evidence of Southwark engaging with Ubitricity to create a network of lamp post charging points for electric vehicles in SE22.

I need to change my car and I?d love it to be electric but I don?t have a driveway where I can install a charging point, so I would be reliant on these converted lampposts.

There are at least 4 Ubitricity lamposts near where I live, so all good so far... but the space next to the lamppost is not reserved for electric vehicles!

Until LB Southwark dedicates these few isolated bays, in the same way that a disabled space or city car club bay is marked out, then it?s pointless installing the charging points, as anyone can park there.

Please can someone tell me Southwark is aware of this issue, on top of it, and in the process of resolving?

Many thanks in advance.

[Nigello]

Edbloke, I agree with you. I have no skin the game, not having any vehicle, and I pointed this out the other week. I fear it is greenwashing and very frustrating for those who want/need to charge up their car/van. It makes no sense to have electric chargers on lampposts and then not reserve the space near them for electric vehicles.

[Abe_froeman]

Those who want/need to charge up their car/van could just park by their won homes instead and run a cable from their own electricity supply.

I don't agree at all with the council providing free electricity indiscriminately for people to run expensive electric vehicles. It's literally a free for all for people from outside southwark and for businesses to fuel their vehicle for free when we have poor people in the borough living in squalid conditions because the council supposedly has no money.

It also flies in the face of all the BS posted above about the council implementing CPZs in our streets to try to discourage people from using cars.

[nxjen]

Free? Don?t think so

[Abe_froeman]

I've seen a councillor on twitter confirm that the electricity from the lamp post charging points is free.

[nxjen]

Any chance of a link?

[dresswaves]

Not free

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/105118/first-public-ev-charging-lamp-posts-installed-in-london

[Abe_froeman]

Took me a while to find as it was a few months ago, but here is a Dulwich councillor posting a pic of a ?35,000 car being charged and confirming the electricity is free.

[edbloke]

Most lampposts seem to be converted or run by a company called Ubitricity and their website has 2 ways to pay, via a smart cable or pay-as-you-go.

https://www.ubitricity.co.uk/residential_charging/

No mention anywhere of free charging.

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Those who want/need to charge up their car/van

> could just park by their won homes instead and run

> a cable from their own electricity supply.

>

> I don't agree at all with the council providing

> free electricity indiscriminately for people to

> run expensive electric vehicles. It's literally a

> free for all for people from outside southwark and

> for businesses to fuel their vehicle for free when

> we have poor people in the borough living in

> squalid conditions because the council supposedly

> has no money.

>

> It also flies in the face of all the BS posted

> above about the council implementing CPZs in our

> streets to try to discourage people from using

> cars.

[Abe_froeman]

Perhaps James McCash can confirm whether or not Southwark are providing the electricity free of charge, but I would be surprised if his fellow conucillor had made a mistake.

[Penguin68]

For a council to be providing a subsidy for non community charge payers (they have no control over who would be using these charging points) must be an error. Are they perhaps paying for the installation of these points, but not then electricity consumed through them? That might make more sense. And it might explain what seems to be two different stories.

Or even, not charging the supplier to install charging points on their lamp posts. So no straight subsidy at all, but also no additional revenue stream for supplying supporting infrastructure. That would make a lot of sense. No costs to the council at all, but a potential revenue stream ignored to encourage electric vehicle usage locally. So then, they wouldn't be charging the supplier of the equipment for siting it on their lamp posts. Hence the 'no charges' concept.

[Abe_froeman]

In that scenario Penguin, would Southwark be buying the electricity (with our money)then giving it away to the supplier for free, and then the supplier sells that electricity to residents charging their cars? That would be pretty appalling wouldn't it?

Also it seems Ubitricity is an offshore company

[Penguin68]

Presumably Southwark pays for the electricity consumed by its lamps, but the charging electricity is separately metered and either charged out to the supplier by Southwark or directly by that supplier

[nxjen]

I don?t think Southwark are buying any electricity then selling it on, or giving it away, to anyone. I think as Penguin suggests they may be paying for the installation of charging points, or alternatively, not charging the installer for the use of lamp-posts. If Southwark was giving away electricity, free power for people to run their vehicles, there would be a legal challenge very soon. What Andy Simmons says in his tweet does imply this is what Southwark are planning but, yes, councillors do make mistakes and sometimes misunderstand the question.

[Abe_froeman]

A bit more digging into this , it seems Southwark have used a company called "char.gy" rather than ubitricity.

Char.gy do charge for the electricity and their charging point lam posts on their website look nothing like the one in the photo that Mr Simmons posted. Very curious.

https://char.gy/

[jamesmcash]

Hi all

Electric car charging points

The council is rolling out electric car charge points across the borough. If you have an electric car or plan to buy one then please email me with your name and address and I can make sure that your street is prioritised.

Each charge point normally serves 4 parking spaces so once a point is installed near your home it should be possible to access it relatively frequently. I have had a fair few people contact me about having a charge point installed near their address but not anyone complain that they have one by their home which they cannot access. In my view, there are not currently enough electric cars in the area to justify rolling out dedicated spaces by the charge points. I worry too that this would add to existing parking pressure.

The electricity provided by these lamposts is chargeable to the user. It is free to request installation of a charge-point though.

Policy on CPZ implementation

I am afraid that I am unsure of how these different documents interact. But I do know for certain that the current policy in practice is the one I support: CPZs to only be implemented with the consent of residents. This will be confirmed, no doubt, when the East Dulwich CPZ is implemented in an area with majority support from residents.

Best wishes

James

[Nigello]

once a point is installed near your home it should be possible to access it relatively frequently.

This is wishful thinking. People with cars will park anywhere and won't be thinking of leaving a space for a potential e-vehicle. It's greenwashing and does more harm than good because it gives the impression that thought isn't being put into what should be our priority - containing global heating. Have the courage of your convictions (where you = someone in authority) and fence off spaces for e-vehicles next to charging lampposts. It makes sense to do so and no sense not to do so.

[jamesmcash]

Hi Nigello,

As I said above no one has ever contacted me to say that they have an electric car charge point outside their house that they regularly cannot access due to other cars being parked there. If this is the case for you then do let me know and I will look into what can be done about it. But I do not think it is necessary to roll this out as a blanket policy at this moment.

Best wishes

James

[jamesmcash]

Dear all

If anyone has paid for their garden waste sticker and has not received it by the end of next week (5th July) please let me know. Many people should have it by now.

Best wishes

James

[singalto]

James, I have my sticker but not my food caddies.

[jamesmcash]

Dear singalto

Aha I see. If it's not there by the end of the week then please drop me an email and I'll chase it up.

Best wishes

James

[singalto]

James, it arrived on Friday although the big food caddie says food and garden waste on it!

[katanita]

Is there an answer yet on the garden bags, in particular whether we can use older ones? I have one that will be full soon. Many thanks.