Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hand delivered today was a missive from Southwark informing me that a Southwark-wide CPZ was to be implemented by the end of the year (so far as I understood it) with the only consultation being on how painful we wanted it to be (not whether we wanted it or not). The clear reason given was to remove cars from Southwark to make the streets prettier - there was no pretence that this had anything to do with parking problems or any other recent excuses, other than it was cars that were parking. It was just to make the streets and pavements prettier without the annoyance of cars. I live a 25 minute walk from any station (younger people might be able to walk quicker) and I would not consider cycling safe at my age and (mild) infirmity. And I live on a hill. But I do have off-street parking for 3 cars! - But not for trades and delivery people, of course, or relatives, or friends, or (eventually) carers.

Does anyone recall whether Southwark Labour had a compulsory (no consultation) borough wide CPZ in their last election manifesto? I can't recall it. In the manifesto before they did say they wanted to rid Southwark of private vehicles of course, but I didn't notice it in the most recent one. They also listed their proposed prices - but we know what they do with price lists once they've been introduced, so they're hardly relevant. Oh, and they're not going to charge blue badge holders too much! But they are going to charge them, of course.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/329019-southwark-wide-cpz/
Share on other sites

 

The consultation document that the pamphlet leads you to is, once again, designed to give the council the positive outcome they desire.

 

Here are the only two questions on parking restrictions on your street - it comes as no surprise to anyone that nowhere can you click: I do not want a parking zone.

 

Again like so many consultations before it if you don't want parking restrictions you are forced to leave your comment in a comments box that then does not get registered by the council.

 

The brazenness of it is beyond belief. 

 

4. What would be your preference for the days of operation of the new controlled parking restrictions?
 Monday to Friday Monday to Saturday 7 days a week
5. What would be your preference for the times of operation of the new controlled parking restrictions?
 All day (e.g. 8:30am - 6:30pm) Longer hours (e.g. 8.30am - 11pm) Part of the day (e.g. 11am to 3pm) 24 hours
  • Like 3

Of course ED does not need CPZ. Southwark Council need it.

They have multiple environmental and climate related boxes to tick and CPZ helps them do just that while simultaneously providing the perfect greenwashed disguise for their need for revenue. Just remember a council that really, genuinely valued the aforementioned would never consider hiring out its parkland for very large commercial, environmentally polluting events. 

Edited by first mate
  • Like 1
13 hours ago, Rockets said:

Here are the only two questions on parking restrictions on your street - it comes as no surprise to anyone that nowhere can you click: I do not want a parking zone.

Again like so many consultations before it if you don't want parking restrictions you are forced to leave your comment in a comments box that then does not get registered by the council.

4. What would be your preference for the days of operation of the new controlled parking restrictions?
 Monday to Friday Monday to Saturday 7 days a week
5. What would be your preference for the times of operation of the new controlled parking restrictions?
 All day (e.g. 8:30am - 6:30pm) Longer hours (e.g. 8.30am - 11pm) Part of the day (e.g. 11am to 3pm) 24 hours

True, but you can at least choose to leave those two questions blank, thereby not positively voting for any of the available options, then leave a comment stating that you don't require a CPZ at all, as you suggested.  I agree, that's not ideal, but better than nothing.

  • Like 1

It is also not clear to me what the impact will be on existing CPZs. If this is to be Southwark wide I suspect that the council will retrofit the most savage choice, say the 24/7 option, on all existing CPZs. At the least, any zone more lenient than whatever the council chooses will be increased to that. And make no mistake, it will be the council's not the residents' choice. It will not be implemented by ward, even though the paperwork might imply that. After all, ease of administration will aim for a unified approach of equal misery. 

16 minutes ago, RichH said:

True, but you can at least choose to leave those two

I would suggest leaving blank but saying in the commentary that you don't want any additional CPZs, but if one is to be implemented you would choose the 5 day limited time option. That way you cannot be shown by silence to have endorsed the 24/7 option. Do remember that the council has previous when it comes to 'interpreting' survey results. And claiming they are non binding if they don't match what they want! 

5 minutes ago, DuncanW said:

I haven't received any missives through my door as yet, is there something on line to link to?

Scroll to the bottom of the linked article below and click "Online Survey" in the "Give Us Your Views" box:

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/dulwich-hill-streets-for-people-consultation/

Extended CPZ on streets that don't need them leads to more people paving over their front gardens in order to park their car off the road. This is bad for wildlife, rainwater soak away and therefore flooding and subsidence.  It's a bad thing every time a front garden is paved over.

  • Like 7

Unfortunately leaving the two questions blank and then leaving comments does not register with the council at all - they disregard comments and focus on the results only - this is why they have very deliberately left off any way to register a "I don't want/think we need CPZs". They have clearly learned from the previous CPZ consultation where that question was on the documentation and 68% of East Dulwich residents said they did not want a CPZ and this forced the council to implement them only on the streets where there was positive endorsement and support (but even then they forced it on a street that clearly voted no).

 

I wonder what the legal precedent is if a previous consultation did have a mechanism for responding no and a new one doesn't - perhaps we should lobby to say that due to the, ahem,  "council oversight" 😉 in not having the option to say no then the results from the previous consultation should carry over in that regard?

 

The council is really playing with fire on this and is treating their constituents with utter contempt. LTNs were one thing but the majority of people in East Dulwich own a car so this will shine a lot of light on the underhand tactics the council is happy to play to get what it wants.

 

If this was not part of the councillors' manifesto during the elections how can they say they have a mandate for this without a proper, democratic consultation? Perhaps someone in Cllr McAsh's ward could address this directly with him?

21 minutes ago, RichH said:

Scroll to the bottom of the linked article below and click "Online Survey" in the "Give Us Your Views" box:

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/dulwich-hill-streets-for-people-consultation/

Thank you, but that seems to link for a scheme for Dulwich Hill only

The way that consultation is worded shows that the CPZ is a done deal. That's why there is no option to object to the CPZ .

It's a consultation on how the CPZ will be implemented, not on whether it should be. 

It also seems that they are implementing these in Dulwich Village and Dulwich Hill, but not Goose Green. 

Presumably that's so that local councillors can pretend they've not broken any promises.

In the last scrutiny session in May, when Cllr Rose was still in charge of streets (now Cllr McAsh) borough-wide CPZ was certainly referred to as a matter of 'when' not 'if'. 
 

As others say Council has no mandate for this and there has been no consultation since the last in ED where 68% were against.

"...we plan to put in place more local parking zones to cover the whole borough over the coming year.

Your area does not currently have a permit system, so we are launching a consultation to ask you how we can make this work..."

 

They aren't asking if they should do it, they are doing it and this consultation is a joke.

 

 

Edited by CPR Dave
6 minutes ago, DuncanW said:

Thank you, but that seems to link for a scheme for Dulwich Hill only

Yep, sorry, that's the blurb I received in the post yesterday.

There's a similar consultation for Dulwich Village here:

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/dulwich-village-streets-for-people-consultation/

The Dulwich Hill and Dulwich Village schemes are the only two current active/open consultations I'm aware of.  Others may have already closed or are yet to be started.

14 hours ago, Rockets said:

 

The consultation document that the pamphlet leads you to is, once again, designed to give the council the positive outcome they desire.

 

Here are the only two questions on parking restrictions on your street - it comes as no surprise to anyone that nowhere can you click: I do not want a parking zone.

 

Again like so many consultations before it if you don't want parking restrictions you are forced to leave your comment in a comments box that then does not get registered by the council.

 

The brazenness of it is beyond belief. 

 

4. What would be your preference for the days of operation of the new controlled parking restrictions?
 Monday to Friday Monday to Saturday 7 days a week
5. What would be your preference for the times of operation of the new controlled parking restrictions?
 All day (e.g. 8:30am - 6:30pm) Longer hours (e.g. 8.30am - 11pm) Part of the day (e.g. 11am to 3pm) 24 hours

I left those questions blank & each time there was a comment box in any of the sections, I said that we have ample space for parking in out street. Sort out the transport infrastructure to go further than the borough ex central london and you may have a case.

34 minutes ago, CPR Dave said:

It's in that consultation, Duncan.

"...we plan to put in place more local parking zones to cover the whole borough over the coming year."

Worth remembering too that they have doubled the costnof parking permits in CPZs this year. They will likely do so again next year.

Thanks Dave!

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...