Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, MrsR said:

Road Traffic Acts

LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK

VARIATION OF RESIDENT VISITOR PERMITS, PERMITS, PAID FOR PARKING, CAR PARK SEASON TICKETS AND SUSPENSION FEES

 

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4297157

Given, Cllr Rose' personal commitment to ensuring the whole borough is CPZ, before long this will apply to everyone, and not just those who own a car. 

Edited by first mate
Quote

Abe_froeman

Hello James

 

I understand that the council intend to implement a CPZ in this and all the other wards in East Dulwich, in spite of the views already expressed by the people who live here.

 

On the basis of what you said below, will you resign if this happens?

 

 

"Posted by jamesmcash 01 May, 2019 23:33

 

Before I was elected last year and when I was a Labour candidate, I was frequently asked about controlled parking. Whether the person questioning me was for or against I always said the same thing: a CPZ should only be implemented if local residents want it"

 

jamesmcash

 

 

 

Abe_froeman

I believe you're referring to a paper that was wrongly published, without the knowledge of either local ward councillors or the relevant Cabinet Member. There are no plans to implement a further CPZ in East Dulwich.

Abe, 

If you listen through the most recent council scrutiny session on environment and community engagement commission, chaired by Cllr Margy Newens ( it is on youtube) Cllr Rose states it is her ambition and intention to see the whole of Southwark made CPZ.

Watch from about 44:24

Cllr Rose explains the rationale and then refers to when there is controlled parking throughout the borough.

she also talks about how when every car owner must hold a permit the council can collect much more detailed data on what sort of vehicle is owned, size, weight, engine size etc.. and this will allow a more nuanced approach to charging. She and Margy Newens refer to research on pollution from tyres and so while ownership of electric vehicles is being, as Rose says, "incentivised" she also notes that they are heavier, so this may change how they are charged down the line.

In terms of benefits to the public...fewer cars so the spaces occupied by cars can be freed up for other things..think many more bike hangars, now to also house some of the hire e-bikes and scooters and more places to park/store more two wheeled vehicles on the street. Southwark aim to be the first borough to take provision of bike hangars in house.

They are also mulling over woodburners and gas hobs.

We get to give more of our money to them. That is the benfit to us.

It was obvious two years ago when they accidentally published that document that were coming for the roads that aren't CPZ yet.

They will. Regardless of what people who pay for them actually want.

  • 2 months later...
On 26/05/2023 at 14:20, malumbu said:

Well actually the money goes to all residents in the borough to provide services etc which has to be a good thing.  So if you think about it like this you will be much happier.  In fact I will thank you for your good citizenship. 

 

On 26/05/2023 at 14:20, malumbu said:

Well actually the money goes to all residents in the borough to provide services etc which has to be a good thing.  So if you think about it like this you will be much happier.  In fact I will thank you for your good citizenship. 

It is illegal for the money to be used for anything other than running the scheme and highway maintenance. 

But not to make no provision for expenditure on roads but to use your budget to spend on other things. That's the problem with such hypothecation. It's meant to be additional expenditure, of course, but there's nothing in law to stop it being wholly substitutional. Southwark intends to make the 40-50% of households (more in the south of the borough) with cars pay for the whole of the road and pavements in Southwark. Those without cars still get full and untrammeled use of those roads and pavements of course... What price equity, eh? 

  • Like 1

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

    • Tommy has been servicing our boiler for a number of years now and has also carried out repairs for us.  His service is brilliant; he’s reliable, really knowledgeable and a lovely guy.  Very highly recommended!
    • I have been using Andy for many years for decorating and general handyman duties. He always does a great job, is very friendly and his prices are competitive. Highly recommend.
    • 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. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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