Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If you're claiming that climate change isn't the largest threat we've ever faced, far greater than any genocide, 30% of which car owners contribute to, please do show me because every national, supranational agency and 99% of climate scientists disagrees. Conservative estimates are 3.4 million deaths annually, more than the Holocaust every 2 years

Frankly, anybody who doesn't hand on heart need a car but still has one should be deeply ashamed of themselves. We're in one of the best connected cities in the world and you choose to inflict this on your children for the sake of "comfort" and "convenience". Shame on you 

 

 

Edited by megalaki84

Then do have a word with some of your fellow campaigners as many do seem to own cars or request use of them. Of course, when they need one it is clearly valid and vital.

As I said before, I assume you never ever use a car. I also assume that you are similarly outraged and offended by myriad other aspects of daily life, many of which are viewed as necessary.

Edited by first mate

I live in the area now called 'Dulwich Hill' by Southwark. We have all had the same paperwork as your patch. At the 'consultation meeting on Monday I suggested to the Parking Project Manager that Southwark had failed in their Statutory requirements to carry out a consultation seeking views and suggestions from residents. He said that they could implement charges because of this they carried that consultation boroughwide in 2019. It appears that this entire area was omitted from that survey. Wondering if Nunhead was as well?

I'm now challenging Southwark on the grounds that they failed to follow statutory protocols. 

"statutory protocols"? Err no such thing.

There will be a statutory consultation later but it's not a vote. Rather you can try providing informed comment as to how Southwark might meet climate, air quality, road safety etc. targets without parking controls and significant reductions in car use and ownership they will help deliver.

The council seems to have finally woken up about how its performance was second worst across London in the last decade - see attached image from p10 of this report. It now needs to take action.

Good luck, you'll need it.

Screenshot from 2023-07-19 16-08-37.png

  • Like 2

But why haven't Cllrs McAsh and Rose clearly stated that they are legally obliged to impose borough wide CPZ and that the matter is essentially out of their hands? It seems very odd, given the strength of feeling.

Edited by first mate
2 hours ago, first mate said:

But why haven't Cllrs McAsh and Rose clearly stated that they are legally obliged to impose borough wide CPZ and that the matter is essentially out of their hands? It seems very odd, given the strength of feeling.

You are assuming they are being advised competently? 🫣

If the council is serious about its targets to reduce motor traffic etc. significantly by 2030, it's obvious that 2hr long parking restrictions targetted at commuters are not going to be effective, especially as less of the driving post-pandemic is people commuting. Yet the consultation still talks about "Reducing traffic by reducing people driving into Southwark", as if it's simply about outsiders. A lot of people aren't going to agree whatever happens, but at least give people the relevant information so we can try having an honest, informed conversation.

Also there will particularly need to be longer hours of restrictions (not least on weekends) on Lordship Lane etc. Buses increasingly are getting delayed trying to squeeze past ever wider cars on streets designed using dimensions of horses and carts.

Oh come on, if it is, as you state, a matter of law they will have known ages ago.

So, I ask again, if it is the case that the council must by law now impose a borough wide CPZ why have councillors not said? It honestly makes no sense. Most politicans will play the blame game and pass the buck on unpopular decisions if they can.  It highly unlikely that this legal aspect would not have been mentioned at the recent scrutiny committee session or assembly, where CPZ was discussed in some detail.

 

8 hours ago, CPR Dave said:

It's plainly bullshit that they have to do it by force of law. 

They've chosen to do this because they are jealous of people who own a car. Even if a lot of those people are actually really quite poor.

Until there is a rationale for why councillors have kept completely silent about an alleged requirement in law to impose a borough-wide CPZ, I am not inclined to believe it either. A misunderstanding, perhaps...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Money has to be raised in order to slow the almost terminal decline of public services bought on through years of neglect under the last government. There is no way to raise taxes that does not have some negative impacts / trade offs. But if we want public services and infrastructure that work then raise taxes we must.  Personally I'm glad that she is has gone some way to narrowing the inheritance loop hole which was being used by rich individuals (who are not farmers) to avoid tax. She's slightly rebalanced the burden away from the young, putting it more on wealthier pensioners (who let's face it, have been disproportionately protected for many, many years). And the NICs increase, whilst undoubtedly inflationary, won't be directly passed on (some will, some will likely be absorbed by companies); it's better than raising it on employees, which would have done more to depress growth. Overall, I think she's sailed a prudent course through very choppy waters. The electorate needs to get serious... you can't have European style services and US levels of tax. Borrowing for tax cuts, Truss style, it is is not. Of course the elephant in the room (growing ever larger now Trump is in office and threatening tariffs) is our relationship with the EU. If we want better growth, we need a closer relationship with our nearest and largest trading block. We will at some point have to review tax on transport more radically (as we see greater up take of electric vehicles). The most economically rational system would be one of dynamic road pricing. But politically, very difficult to do
    • Labour was right not to increase fuel duty - it's not just motorists it affects, but goods transport. Fuel goes up, inflation goes up. Inflation will go up now anyway, and growth will stagnate, because businesses will pass the employee NIC hikes onto customers.  I think farms should be exempt from the 20% IHT. I don't know any rich famers, only ones who work their fingers to the bone. But it's in their blood and taking that, often multi-generation, legacy out of the family is heart-breaking. Many work to such low yields, and yet they'll often still bring a lamb to the vet, even if the fees are more than the lamb's life (or death) is worth. Food security should be made a top priority in this country. And, even tho the tax is only for farms over £1m, that's probably not much when you add it all up. I think every incentive should be given to young people who want to take up the mantle. 
    • This link mau already have been posted but if not olease aign & share this petition - https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-closure-of-east-dulwich-post-office
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...