Southwark-wide CPZ

[David Peckham]

Is it a single, Southwark-wide CPZ, or a mosaic of discrete CPZs?

If it's the latter, does that mean Southwark residents cannot make certain journeys within the borough without incurring a charge at their destination, despite having paid for a permit in their own area?

 

 

 

 

[Rockets]

Looks like a few big zone areas but no info on how they divide it up - I suspect they will divide the area into smaller zones (which I believe is the model other boroughs in more central London follow).

 

 

[first mate]

Watch from 44.24. Catherine Rose explains how they intend to collect car data to be able to charge according to weight and size of car. She acknowledges that electric cars are heavier, so don't think owning one will save you from charges. Later in this section she alludes to the difficulties of bringing residents over to accept CPZs. She also talks about 'when' the whole borough is CPZ, not "if". She says that it will be easier to collect car data and refine charges once everyone is paying for a permit.

If you can be bothered to watch the whole piece, Rose earlier explains that permits and CPZ charges are and will be used to "incentivise" a reduction in car ownership. In short, they intend to charge so heavily you will be forced to give up your car. They also have their sights set on electric cars.

Again, there was no mandate for any of this.

This was the last session on the subject. The June scrutiny session was cancelled. Suggest we look out for the July session, with Cllr McAsh in the hot seat.

Edited July 5, 2023 by first mate

[Rockets]

One presumes the council is not going to run any public meetings about the CPZs - they seem to be shying away from fronting the constituents since Covid - is there a pre-requisite for them to hold public meetings around consultations?

 

Interesting comments on electric vehicles and the "heavier" issue which is very much aligned to their "particulate" narrative which is their new go-to to avoid them having to fully embrace electric vehicles.

 

In that light it is interesting the pricing for different vehicles in the CPZ:

£224.64 a year for a ULEZ compliant vehicle

£149.76 a year for a hybrid

£74.88 for an electric

 

 

- 

[first mate]

In the same scrutiny session Rose alludes to a challenging meeting with Nunhead residents on CPZ. She says the meeting very well attended. However, despite this resistance the stated intention is to plough on, indeed, Rose says she is determined to see the changes implemented.

No mandate, forced changes residents do not want. This is not democracy.

As a complete aside, I see Cllr McAsh now describes himself as socialist and not marxist...

Edited July 5, 2023 by first mate

[IainJ]

The last consultation on the CPZ in East Dulwich was exemplary of its kind - clear options were set out with plans and open ended questions inviting reasoned responses. The Council took these seriously, and by and large the end result was felt to be satisfactory. 

It seems this time there are no counter arguments being allowed.  A CPZ in my street is needed no more than it was the last time the consultation was done. The only rationale is that the Council wants to take the power to charge residents for parking come what may, and rack up the costs year by year.

Apart from anything else, it is profoundly inequitable as those residents, mostly the ones living in larger houses who have a drive or a garage will be able to avoid it while the rest of us have to pay for something which will be of very little benefit. 

 

Edited July 5, 2023 by IainJ

[HDAS]

4 hours ago, DuncanW said:

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

you can complete the survey here: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/dulwich-hill-streets-for-people-consultation/

[Rockets]

And the last consultation on CPZs didn't give the council the mandate they needed (65% of respondents rejected the plans) to roll out CPZs across the whole of East Dulwich so they have learned from that and manipulated the latest consultation process to ensure no-one has a path to object. This is local council "democracy" in action and it's shamefully brazen - they really don't care one jot for the views of their constituents (unless they need your vote of course). No doubt early next year they will come knocking on our doors asking us to support Sadiq in the mayoral elections (probably be the only time we will see them between now and then).

Edited July 5, 2023 by Rockets

[Nunheader]

We have the identical problem in Nunhead and Queens Road as we have been presented with the fait accompli of a blanket CPZ in Nunhead and Queens Road Ward and a section of Peckham Rye ward.  Same forced choice of the parking controls we would 'like' to see which make no sense as there is not a parking problem to solve in much of the area.   CPZs are intended to be useful tools to manage traffic flow, parking congestion and commuter parking which is an inconvenience to residents. There is no evidence that they lead to cleaner air - most of the cars are parked most of the time.  It is wrong  to impose them for areas relatively far from town centres, with poorer public transport access.  This can only be understood as a greenwashed revenue raising venture. CPZs are meant to be self-financing and not  profit making enterprises hence it is hard to understand where the money will come from for all the new street goodies being promised.  The  southern area of Southwark is mainly residential so all car owners  (between 56% and 73% of households in the area)  will be paying, for example, £225 p.a for a ULEZ compliant car.  Less for electric, more for old diesel, plus of course the cost to visitors.    Visit  https://opposethecpz.org/  to see what is happening in the NQR area. 

[HDAS]

3 hours ago, DuncanW said:

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

it's Barry Road to wood vale and then PR common and park - parking in the park will be CPZ and then the colyton road to Marmora block

[Rockets]

Does anyone know - are the council required to hold this consultation as statutory or non-statutory?

[malumbu]

Going back to earlier posts as I've said before prices are reasonable and affordable by everyone I know in the area (and I ain't posh nor do Iive in a leafy street).  Unless space for parking isn't critical you won't get mass support.  But the bigger picture is less cars which surely we all agree with.  

[Plumbingdisaster]

I am also dismayed like many of you. There is an option to write in plus a freepost address. That seems to be a way of voicing opposition more clearly than online. I am going to do that plus write to my councillor

Anyone planning to get posters made?

Edited July 5, 2023 by Plumbingdisaster

[first mate]

56 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Going back to earlier posts as I've said before prices are reasonable and affordable by everyone I know in the area (and I ain't posh nor do Iive in a leafy street).  Unless space for parking isn't critical you won't get mass support.  But the bigger picture is less cars which surely we all agree with.  

Cllr Rose stated that the whole raison d'etre for CPZ is to "incentivise" car owners to give up their cars. Therefore, even if the costs seem reasonable and affordable to you now Mal, the assumption has to be that they will keep raising permit and parking prices until people sell their cars, or their stated reason for doing this will have failed.

The other point is will there be less cars? Rose said they would use space freed up by private cars to build a much greater club car offering. So not sure there will necessarily be less cars. What there will be is a greater opportunity for the council to monetise public space, a bit like Rose wants to do with our parks.

 

Edited July 5, 2023 by first mate

[malumbu]

Most cars round here are used infrequently - convenience rather than utility.  Car club less convenient but much greater utility.  Therefore less cars and frees up road space where cars were once parked.  What's not to like.

[FredCasa]

I thought Dulwich Hill was in Sidney?? Lived here for 50 years, never heard of Dulwich Hill.

And I agree - this is a solution in search of a problem. What exactly are the social or environmental benefits a CPZ will produce?

[Jules-and-Boo]

the roll out/ introduction of CPZ across all of Britain has been going on for a number of years. It's a money making scheme and also designed to reduce the number of cars (not at all a bad thing).

the real concern is that people think this is a labour initiative and that voting in the tories will mean that it won't go ahead.

it's not relevant. the council will introduce it anyway but that short sightedness can have long term impacts, especially with the general election approaching.

[CPR Dave]

A reminder to everyone that "Malumbu" doesn't live or work in Southwark and has no business pretending on these threads that they do.

Sorry Jules but this is a Labour policy through and through. The local Labour Councillor is a self declared Marxist. By his own definition he doesn't believe in  people owning private property.

Taxing people out of car ownership is the definition of this man.

[Pugwash]

Has anyone considered those residents who require carer's visits, or rely on family coming by car outside of the area to do an elderly/disabled resident's shopping or taking them to GP surgeries. My daughter drives up from Kent and always has problems parking but she expects this and allows extra time. 

Not all disabled people are eligible for a blue badge - I frequently take 2 people with mobility problems plus a partially sighted friend to local meetings and social events around the Dulwich area. My knowledge of CPZ s is that they cover your specific street or part of street i.e. Barry Road, but would not cover me if I had to park in Landells Road.  None of the people I transport work, and are  not in receipt of attendance allowance/PIP etc so would not be able to afford to contribute to parking fees etc.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I don't know why free on-street car storage should be seen as an entitlement. It is difficult to think of any other scenario in which individuals can store large items on public land free of charge / without restriction. If I was to put a shed on the street outside my house, people wouldn't consider it remotely reasonable... but a van that never moves? If one wants to temporarily place a skip on the street, you have to pay. There are significant 'externalised' costs to car storage and use. It's right that more of those costs are internalised.

Edited July 5, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[malumbu]

How very dare you.  I have visited Southwark on many occasions.  Often with my good friend Debbie.  It is where the drama series Dallas was filmed.  Debbie regularly does Dallas. That must be my most puerile of posts.  Can't be assed to defend my right to free speech 

[Bic Basher]

I wondered why I got a "Dulwich Hill" Streets for People Newsletter through my door despite not being in Dulwich Hill ward.    The map shown above also covers part of Dulwich Wood and Peckham Rye wards.

 

 

[CPR Dave]

It's a good point about skips, Earl A.

 

At present in non-CPZ zones you only need to pay £96 @ month for a skip licence.

When they bring in parking zones you will need to pay for a parking bay suspension on top of that which costs an additional £45 PER DAY plus an administration charge of another £79. 

So the cost of having a skip for one month will go up from £96 to £1,525. 

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/guide-to-parking/suspension-of-parking-bays

[first mate]

The cost of many things will go up. Any kind of building work, maintenance, visitors... So in a cost of living crisis Southwark Labour are doing their utmost to load on more costs for everyone. 

[malumbu]

I've got a recommendation for anyone that has rubbish that needs to be disposed of.  Cheaper than hiring a skip