CPZ announced

[Mscrawthew]

Drxyster Wrote:

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

> I understand from a very good friend who lives in

> Lewisham, that Lewisham Council are also proposing

> the implementation of a CPZ.

> I am told that Lewisham Council is being taken to

> court, by a resident or residents, claiming this

> action is illegal.

> Lewisham Council have suspended the implementation

> of the CPZ until they have a definitive ruling

> from the court.

Very interesting. Anyone up for some crowd funding to challenge the outcome in Dulwich?

[jimlad48]

I have recently bought a car again. In the greater scheme of things, barely ?10 to ensire I can park is a bargain. Dont see what all the fuss is about to be honest.

[ianr]

> I am told that Lewisham Council is being taken to

> court, by a resident or residents, claiming this

> action is illegal.

Any idea of which specific aspect?

I see btw that, in pursuance of the reduction of pollution, Lewisham propose a banding of charges, based on vahicle CO2 emission bands. https://lewisham.gov.uk/articles/news/we-are-proposing-to-consult-on-our-parking-policy

[TheArtfulDogger]

jimlad48 Wrote:

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

> I have recently bought a car again. In the greater

> scheme of things, barely ?10 to ensire I can park

> is a bargain. Dont see what all the fuss is about

> to be honest.

The fuss is that it's ten pounds where as currently it's not charged for, and even then it doesn't guarantee you can park in your own road so you are being charged for less spaces and status quo in terms of guaranteeing a space.

[worldwiser]

What I don't understand is why residents who live just outside the zone are not permitted to buy a permit. Commuters were the clear and intended target of the whole exercise so the fact that residents like us will inevitably suffer huge inconvenience is intolerable and utterly unfair.

[intexasatthe moment]

If you live outside the zone and are worried that the CPZ will result in increased parking in your street buying a permit is unlikely to help as it won't guarantee a space . And the hope of parking in the zone will increasingly fade if the permits were sold to a wider public .

[rollflick]

Given London councils are still in breach of 2010 air quality limits, they have to take action so this suggested legal case sounds doomed. Needless to say the climate emergency also has some relevance.

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. Over 3/4 of those surveyed in Southwark's biggest consultation exercises supported cutting traffic and concern about climate change is at record levels. So the borough has compelling grounds to take action. The mayor's policy requires Southwark to ensure "London?s streets will be used more efficiently and have less traffic on them", so Southwark has adopted policies to "Introduce a borough wide CPZ & Review parking charges to charge most polluting vehicles more." The time limit for challenging that is over and any CPZ decision taken on the basis of that policy will be robust.

The suggestion that parking policies are about favouring driving residents over driving commuters is not true and not reflected in any borough policy.

That's not of course to say everyone will or should agree with parking controls, at least those who don't could suggest alternatives to cut emissions to respect the desires of the majority for a healthier, greener borough.

[first mate]

Rollflick, well put. I'd have thought monitoring of air quality will be important and we'd need to see improvement.

[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

[Sunglasses]

Assuming the proposals for the CPZ are agreed, when is this CPZ actually going to come into effect? Thanks

[Charles Martel]

rollflick Wrote:

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

> [...]

>

> 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. Over 3/4 of those surveyed in

> Southwark's biggest consultation exercises

> supported cutting traffic and concern about

> climate change is at record levels. So the borough

> has compelling grounds to take action. The mayor's

> policy requires Southwark to ensure "London?s

> streets will be used more efficiently and have

> less traffic on them", so Southwark has adopted

> policies to "Introduce a borough wide CPZ & Review

> parking charges to charge most polluting vehicles

> more." The time limit for challenging that is

> over and any CPZ decision taken on the basis of

> that policy will be robust.

None of this has any relevance to a small CPZ covering a few streets around East Dulwich station. If the residents of that area are happy then good for them. However the CPZ will do precisely nothing to cut the volume of through traffic on any of the routes through this area. It really is absurd to suggest that it will when we have virtually stationary queues of traffic which we can all see every morning and evening on these routes. Southwark council cannot dictate the number of cars allowed to drive along the South Circular, the Old Kent Road or anywhere else in the borough. So instead of solving the problem, they try and use the problem to charge residents who own cars a poll tax. How can any rational person think that just giving Southwark council an extra ?125 will solve anything, much less climate change? In the 80s Southwark was declared a nuclear free zone. That did not end the Cold War. Now Southwark has declared a climate emergency. Perhaps this will have more impact, but I doubt it.

>

> The suggestion that parking policies are about

> favouring driving residents over driving commuters

> is not true and not reflected in any borough

> policy.

This statement is totally ridiculous. The whole argument made in the council's CPZ consultation proposal was that residents were asking for a CPZ because they wanted to be able to park their cars. This was restated by local councillors at a meeting I attended in April. Now if you are saying that what the council says is a lie and that they have a hidden agenda, then many would agree with you.

>

> That's not of course to say everyone will or

> should agree with parking controls, at least those

> who don't could suggest alternatives to cut

> emissions to respect the desires of the majority

> for a healthier, greener borough.

No. The people who are in favour of new policies should be the ones explaining how their proposals will actually achieve their desired outcomes. How exactly does a CPZ cut through traffic? How exactly does charging residents a fee for parking their cars outside their houses cut air pollution? Why would a charge of ?125 change the behaviour of someone who can afford to keep a car on the road in any case?

To cut traffic effectively we would need to introduce a national road pricing scheme, but the people running this country would regard that as too difficult.

To cut CO2 emissions we need to build all the nuclear power stations we should have built in the 70s and 80s, but didn't because of superstitious idiots. All the people who were against nuclear power then should take their share of responsibility for the carbon emissions they opted for instead. With a nuclear reactor you can even make jet fuel out of sea water https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/fuel-seawater-whats-catch-180953623/#YLDSdRRsTxzzwUFH.99

[Penguin68]

In the 80s Southwark was declared a nuclear free zone. As indeed was Greenwich - both declarations seemed entirely 'safe' (nice bit of virtue signalling, nothing needing to be done) - but of course Greenwich had, (a State Secret at the time) a working nuclear generator - in The Royal Naval College - as it was then - to train submariner engineers - it was sited in the Queen Mary Building. Not that powerful, of course, but still Greenwich was anything but a nuclear free zone. And Southwark did of course benefit from electricity generated by nuclear power throughout its 'nuclear free' status.

[Earl Aelfheah]

It's all good and well making driving more difficult, but this needs to be met with equal efforts to make alternatives easier / more attractive. Public transport in this part of town is terrible (at least compared to the rest of Inner London). Cycling infrastructure is improving massively, especially in the centre of town, but is still pretty weak locally. If Southwark are serious about creating 'healthy streets', they would have a massive programme of pedestrianisation, build segregated cycle lanes and lobby hard for improvements to the suburban train services in SE London and to extend high frequency urban transport / the tube.

[Abe_froeman]

This doesn't even make driving more difficult! The whole point of it is to make driving easier. The people that wanted this CPZ the most were those who get in their car every morning, pop out for a little drive and then find a commuter in 'their' parking spot when they get home.

These people want to be able to drive to wherever they are going (presumably parking somewhere?) and still have their parking space once they've driven home. And the CPZ enables and makes those journeys a lot esaier...

[eastdulwichlocal99]

.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> This doesn't even make driving more difficult! The

> whole point of it is to make driving easier. The

> people that wanted this CPZ the most were those

> who get in their car every morning, pop out for a

> little drive and then find a commuter in 'their'

> parking spot when they get home.

>

> These people want to be able to drive to wherever

> they are going (presumably parking somewhere?) and

> still have their parking space once they've driven

> home. And the CPZ enables and makes those journeys

> a lot esaier...

This is very true. It does likely encourage short local car journeys.

[Abe_froeman]

At a guess, given the timing, I would think they will be driving to a school.

[wongo]

I am on the Lewisham side of Sydenham Hill at Crystal Palace Parade end. In March 2018 Southwark Council secretly in the middle of the night under the pretence of re-tarmacing the road extended the bus lane and double yellow lines resulting in the lost of 20 street car parking spaces on both the Lewisham and Southwark sides. This was done without a public consultation and instead using TFL's initiative as an excuse. We contacted TFL and they came back to say Sydenham Hill is not under their control. The parking restrictions were supposed to be 24/7 despite Sydenham Hill being a relatively quiet road.Obviously, residents and properties affected raised their objections.

Southwark, knowing this was illegal, undertook a residents consultation in June 2018 and the objections to the bus lane and double yellow lines were overwhelming. Not accepting the June 2018 results, Southwark conducted another residents consultation in June this year and the result was the same. We knew this by talking to residents affected. Southwark did not want to furnish the results of both consultations to us. So to date the bus lane and double yellow extension is left as it was and residents continue to park on it knowing the restrictions cannot be implemented.

[pagan]

here the orders

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/roadworks-and-highway-improvements/traffic-management-orders?chapter=5

[pagan]

pretty tricky....if a resident that lives in the CPZ doesn't want to spend money on the permit or against it, or with no money for that. it Will for sure park few roads away in some parking free zone street. Basically the area where is free zone will be assaulted by many extra vehicles looking for the free parking. As consequence the residents will complain...Hence soon the Council has white paper to declare all East Dulwich CPZ, as such imposing charges to everybody. Simple as that ...cleverly masterminded...

[Abe_froeman]

It's not that clever pagan, it's been pretty obvious for a number of years as they slowly creep bit by bit through the borough with their stealth tax scheme.

Presumably the change to all day is to catch out people who are waiting to pick someone up from the train station. Otherwise there would be no PCN revenues at all. We will see if the traffic wardens hang around waiting to ticket people at rush hour.

[wongo]

The Sydenham Hill Bus Lane Improvement Notice is dated 28 March 2019 - one year after Southwark secretly extended the bus lane and double yellow lines without prior consultation. As Southwark did not follow proper protocol, following the June 2018 and March 2019 (I mentioned June 2019 in error) residents consultations overwhelming objections the extended bus lane restriction has to date not been enforced.

[Earl Aelfheah]

What annoys me about the whole thing is the pretence that it's about encouraging 'healthy streets' and 'active travel' It is not. It's about appeasing residents who want to keep a car outside their house.

How about closing some streets to traffic, giving space over to bikes and put real effort into lobbying for public transport improvements in the borough.

[Countrlass22]

Well I've responded to new cpz proposal for Ed.

[AylwardS]

Having read the reasons for the decision this makes sense. The proposal was for one two hour zone but there was a suggestion that the zone was split in two and the East Dulwich one operated all day due issues that will arise from parking related to the school / health centre. The full day zone was also suggested, according to the reasons for decision, as the option to go with the shorter time was possible without going back to committee. I can see the health centre will cause parking need all day so a two hour zone isn?t going to have the same impact it did in zone Q where commuter parking was the main issue, but will work for the West Peckham Zone which has the same issues. Its not a fix all but it will address the problem raised.

You can see the committee papers here

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=6916

If you want to respond then you can do that online or by email. The reference is ?TMO1920-025 E Dulwich parking zone?. Responses are to be submitted by 17 October 2019.

The TMO is at https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/10536/E-Dulwich-area-parking-zone-ED-notice-dated-19-Sept-2019-.pdf

The response form can be found at https://forms.southwark.gov.uk/ShowForm.asp?fm_fid=1081 or emails can be sent to [email protected]