CPZ...the results are in.....brace yourselves....

[d.b]

Yes no doubt this is what it's all about - CPZ, charging for brown bins, the council is trying to generate as much money as it can.

The reason should be obvious. Councils have been absolutely gutted financially by successive governments' austerity cutting the money they get from central government and capping the amount they can charge in council tax. Nonetheless Southwark council has obligations to provide critical services and so it looks for every penny it can get.

I don't blame them exactly, but I think it would be more honest (and more efficient) just to take the money in council tax - if they were allowed. Doing it this way creates hassle and bureaucracy, and causes a deterrent effect on our high street.

[Penguin68]

the council is trying to generate as much money as it can

And it is doing so in parts of the budget which are not open to outside scrutiny - it could increase charges 1000 fold and nothing (local elections apart) could stop them. As long as their main electorate is not damaged themselves directly by these charges (i.e. don't have gardens or cars) they will remain in power indefinitely, redistributing wealth as they see fit. The Council Tax is of course open to scrutiny, and central government oversight, which is why they are moving such things as waste collection out of that space whilst they can, actually against government advice.

We have all seen examples of waste (this scheme is one of them, the costs will surely outweigh any revenues, at least in this fiscal) - but this is all about moving charges away from any central control, when 'small' fees can swiftly become big ones.

[KidKruger]

So what?s to stop them moving / ALL charges out of the council tax space ?

Schools, street cleaning, policing, why stop ?!

[Rockets]

It's the council's own version of left-wing privatisation - take something that was previously funded centrally and pass the cost on to those deemed able to afford it (CPZ, garden waste bins, park car parking).

They are at pains to point out that they cannot use money raised from, say, the CPZ or parking fines to fund other services so, at the end of every year, have to fritter their ?7m+ surplus on white-elephant projects like the replacement of paving slabs and kerbs across the East Dulwich ward, which is ongoing at present.

I very much suspect that should a Labour government prevail at the next election those rules of redistribution of raised funds will be loosened and anyone deemed wealthy enough to own, say, a car or garden will find such things are but the tip of the stealth-tax iceberg.

The damage the current Labour party is doing to itself is that it is so far left that many are crying out for a more centrist option and the problem is rife throughout the party and running (through Momentum) to local council officials and policy. East Dulwich (and other such areas that have been rejuvenated) are seen as fair game and a resource fit for harvesting. At the macro level this is why rumours of a leadership challenge are starting to circulate as elements within try desperately to pull power away from the unions and the Marxists and back towards a more centrist (and they believe more electable) stance.

[seenbeen]

They should repaint the zebras outside Alleyn's - nearly mowed a kid down today!

[sally buying]

Most of the zebras should be repainted many you cannot see.

[seenbeen]

Yes- I actually meant the Charter School ones- and they could repaint the triangles on the speed bumps while they are at it

[KidKruger]

....?that?ll be an extra ?15 per month charge besides your council tax, please? !!

[Earl Aelfheah]

Why don't they spend the money raised on extending the Santander hire bike scheme to Southwark?

[Earl Aelfheah]

... Or create segregated cycle lanes like they have in Camden and many other Boroughs (as opposed to painting a bike symbol on a few roads).

[TheArtfulDogger]

In about week we may possible conceptually hear what the decision is as the consultation process states

"Decision due: Not before 31 Jul 2019 by Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport and the Climate Emergency"

Interesting that it's roughly timed for the peak of school summer holidays when people are away

Watch that space (it may have a CPZ bay in it before you know)

[rollflick]

The final report is now online http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50020432&Opt=0

A map of the zone and precise parking bays is in Appendix 1

In short it proposes a combined zone for Peckham West and small part of ED to operate 9-11am Monday to Friday. If Cllr Livingstone decides in favour then this will go to statutory consultation.

Despite local councillors protesting about bus cuts, it no longer includes any measures to reduce bus delays on Lordship Lane, increasing the likelihood of further cuts as TfL's financial position continues to worsen. Although the healthy streets proposals in the wider area (now outside the proposed zone) achieved strong support, these aren't going ahead. Due to being scaled back, the proposals will have negligible impacts on air pollution despite levels exceeding legal limits now and even in 2025 still at one ED junction. Also there's no mention of the new policy to implement a CPZ across the borough, considered vital by the cabinet three months ago to tackle congestion and climate change. In short it's hard to see how these amended proposals could be lawfully approved, another right old mess.

The revised times seem the worst of all worlds: the zone would start unnecessarily early but won't tackle parking pressures at other times of the day. And officers remain blissfully unaware of the growing numbers of long stayers (e.g. see threads on here about abandoned taxis & commercial vehicles) that will simply be displaced to the streets around the leisure centre and east side of Lordship Lane.

[first mate]

If it exists could someone post a map for the proposed ED CPZ? I am unable to get onto the link.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Why does Adys Road need a 'parklet' (awful word) when there is a play park and a green?

[Siduhe]

first mate Wrote:

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

> If it exists could someone post a map for the

> proposed ED CPZ? I am unable to get onto the link.

first mate - I've done a quick stitch together of the maps - it's not the best job but may help. I'll say this, Southwark don't make it easy to work out...

[nxjen]

There is a map (attached) of the proposed revised ED and Peckham West CPZ on page 4 of the report. This just shows the area it may cover without the details of the various types of parking.

[first mate]

Many thanks to you both.

[tortor]

What do people think of this plan? Strikes me as a bit of a cop out. And the worst news for people living in southern Melbourne Grove, Ashbourne and Chesterfield Grove, who will now bear (even more) of the brunt of cars "displaced" from northern Melbourne Grove.

If the argument for restrictions is that it's to stop commuters parking (which seems to be the case) then they need to cover all the roads where it's feasible for commuters to park and still reasonably walk to the station.

It really seems the worst of both worlds to me, but maybe I'm just being pessimistic!

[first mate]

The Council want mass CPZ so either Cllr Livinstone will ignore current recommendations and extend it anyhow or inevitable parking displacement will result in further CPZ sooner or later. The Council want to give the impression of being reasonable etc.. but in reality the utterly cynical extension of double yellow lines indicates the real agenda.

[Earl Aelfheah]

If this was really about improving the environment / safer streets, they would pedestrianising, adding segregated bike lanes and fund the expansion of Boris bikes like every other zone 2 borough. They would also stop granting permission for people to concrete over their front gardens and put in drop kerbs. This whole thing is about drivers sense of entitlement and territoriality over public space, wrapped up as environmentalism.

[harold76]

tortor Wrote:

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

> What do people think of this plan? Strikes me as a

> bit of a cop out. And the worst news for people

> living in southern Melbourne Grove, Ashbourne and

> Chesterfield Grove, who will now bear (even more)

> of the brunt of cars "displaced" from northern

> Melbourne Grove.

>

> If the argument for restrictions is that it's to

> stop commuters parking (which seems to be the

> case) then they need to cover all the roads where

> it's feasible for commuters to park and still

> reasonably walk to the station.

>

> It really seems the worst of both worlds to me,

> but maybe I'm just being pessimistic!

Completely agree. It's a pretty obvious outcome of the proposals as they stand. Melbourne South, Ashbourne and Chesterfield are going to bear the brunt of displaced parking commuters, and even residents of the new CPZ zone who don't want to buy a residents permit.

Dos anyone know why they are excluding these roads from the proposals?

[KidKruger]

Basically it's painting-by-numbers, by stealth.

The eventual outcome entirely predictable (in a year or two we can refer to this thread for evidence of that!).

[Penguin68]

Dos anyone know why they are excluding these roads from the proposals?

Because the people who lived in those roads (in their 'survey') were clear that they were not in favour of a CPZ. The apparat will of course hope that the parking pressure that will be put on them will force them to acquiesce 'down the line' and so eventually the pervasive stench of paid for parking on all our roads will be achieved. And then watch the annual fees hike!.

If they cared about pollution, of course they would either exempt electric cars from their system, or significantly reduce their fees, but of course this is primarily about revenue generation (and always has been) and nothing about congestion and pollution. And of course a left-wing view that car ownership, in and of itself, is wicked, and should be stamped out. Without any attempts actually to increase or indeed stand against the diminution of local public transport services.

[KidKruger]

"Without any attempts actually to increase or indeed stand against the diminution of local public transport services."

This.

[Rockets]

The council has their wish for a CPZ in East Dulwich and, by hook or by crook, they got it. The outcome of this "consultation" was never in doubt - the council wanted a CPZ in East Dulwich not for the better of the environment or the people who live in the area but for them - it's a cash cow - Southwark made a ?6m+ surplus from parking fines, CPZ etc and this is part of their revenue strategy - along with charging for garden waste collections and parking at parks.

They now have their foot in the door in East Dulwich and will soon expand it on the basis of the displacement caused by the small area getting it in this round. This is likely to be the beginning of the end of Lordship Lane and surrounding areas as we know it (I wonder how the traders on Grove Vale feel as the overly long hours of operation WILL impact their businesses) but then the hard-left leaning council cares not one jot for the "affluent" people (as they see it) living or trading in the area - they think everyone has money to burn and want their share of it.

The moral of this story - you can't trust politicians (of any political persuasion) - they will all lie to, mislead, hoodwink and generally use their constituents for their own benefit.

This whole process merely highlights everything that is wrong with politics nowadays.