Southwark-wide CPZ

[Rockets]

Well Mal, go to the lounge then...be our guest...;-)

 

The point I am making is that transport is becoming a sticky issue in London. Clearly the Labour candidate feels he has the best chance to win if he takes a position of resisting ULEZ expansion, no doubt because his advisors have told him a lot of people have concerns about it and he increases his chances of winning by doing so. But this is at odds with the mayor from within his own party and it put the leader of their party in a difficult position.

 

Now for the mayor it is a concern because if there is similar discontent in other areas where ULEZ is being expanded to that could be bad news for him as people may vote against him on the basis of this.

 

Now, how does this relate to the CPZs? Well, and its not too difficult to work out, LTNs caused discontent but those impacted enough to try and do something about it weren't in the same sort of numbers as any car owner who feels the council are taking the p**s. And a large majority of people in the Dulwich area have cars. So what of there is a protest vote against the mayor in the mayoral elections because Sadiq's transport policies are disliked. In the same way there was a large anti-Tory protest vote in the last council elections it could happen in the mayoral elections. This type of thing has, historically, been to the advantage of the Lib Dems who prosper during protest votes when people become fed-up of the two leading parties. 

 

At the national level the sentiment is anti-Tory but I sense a growing apathy towards Labour and much of it the catalyst for is transport policy.

 

Does that help explain it for you? 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, malumbu said:

The ULEZ was a Tory Mayor's concept.  Non Labour councils also have CPZs, parking restrictions and the like.  Try and see past your bias.

But Mal, extending ULEZ is down to Sadiq is it not? Any politician will tell you people have short memories - he is responsible for extending ULEZ and the wrath is aimed at him - I actually saw a very unpleasant sign on a buildong company van from Bromley recently saying F**k Sadiq.

 

[heartblock]

14 minutes ago, northernmonkey said:

just in case anyone is reading this and thinking ' oh i'll have to buy a day pass to cover parking for an hour' - this isn't true at all.  You can get a 1 hour, a 5 hour or an all day permit for visitors.  It may work out cheaper to do all day if they're picking up and dropping back and come in each time, but generally there are different options on visitor permits to facilitate just the scenario outlined above. 

Where can one do this on East Dulwich Grove? I couldn't see how to pay for them to park and pick me up? Interested to know.

[northernmonkey]

As i explained in my message -  you need to register for a parking account and then you can buy permits on there.   Those permits can be for shorter times than all day.  If you bought a whole day permit though i assume you did this online, so you need to purchase the other options onto your account. 

[first mate]

Going back to the elderly and vulnerable aspect, it is a lot to organise and we all know technology can be sketchy. It just adds another layer of complexity for people who probably have enough to deal with.

I find it really distasteful that Southwark want to charge Blue Badge holders.

[exdulwicher]

9 hours ago, Rockets said:

But Mal, extending ULEZ is down to Sadiq is it not? Any politician will tell you people have short memories - he is responsible for extending ULEZ and the wrath is aimed at him - I actually saw a very unpleasant sign on a buildong company van from Bromley recently saying F**k Sadiq.

Nope!

It was one of several conditions and caveats lumped onto TfL in various rounds of funding from central Government including such unworkable rubbish as "looking again at driverless options for the Tube". Government stipulated that the ULEZ expansion (which by the way was already on the cards and going to happen anyway) should be brought forward.

https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/local-transport-today/news/71906/tfl-to-get-1-2bn-from-government-in-long-term-settlement/

Same with LTNs - it's a Government policy, funded by central Government and then they sit back and let the (mostly Labour) councils deal with the fallout because it suits their political narrative. They know full well that it'll meet resistance and opposition so it's made out to be the fault of the council (or TfL, either works from a political point of view).

Transport should be a cross-party cooperation and it isn't at all, it's a political football (much like the NHS) where Government can (for example) de-fund the buses then blame the councils for failing to provide a service or cut rail reform funding then blame Network Rail and the Train Operating Companies.

It's interesting that the councils opposed to ULEZ expansion who have brought the current judicial review (Bexley, Bromley, Harrow, Hillingdon and Surrey) are all Conservative controlled councils and they all have appalling records on active travel and EV charging installation in particular, they're the ones that ripped out all their LTNs within weeks of them being put in - basically they're the ones who have done nothing to promote or enable less polluting methods of transport and now they're kicking off going "it'll hurt the poor who depend on cars..."

Well yes, you're the councils that have done nothing to enable any other mode of transport. And also, you're arguing against a direct instruction from Conservative central Government. And now you're throwing hundreds of thousands of pounds at a judicial review which will come back and say "probably not perfect but yes, it can happen" - much like all the anti-LTN judicial reviews that people got conned into donating for by the various One... groups that brought the reviews.

CPZ isn't quite the same but it's in TfL's London-wide Transport Plan, it's in all the borough transport plans and occasionally it'll get its own "chapter" like Lambeth's flagship Kerbside Strategy which ties into the overall transport plan. The rollout is slightly more dependent on the councils as it'll have to fit in with stuff like roadworks, utilities and so on. Also CPZ works best alongside active travel and bus priority schemes, they're very much complementary.

[legalalien]

Just following on from the bit about the Movement Plan, don't forget that Southwark did an additional consultation last year on a refreshed Sustainable Transport Strategy - which is quite high level - and I don't know where it has got to - it doesn't look as if it has been signed off yet as I can't see it on the Southwark website (will have a quick look at the Forward Plan and see whether I can spot it).  That strategy is to be accompanied by an action plan:

"Each objective will be delivered through several
actions, which will be included in an action plan.
While the strategy has set objectives to be
reached by 2030, the action plan will be a
working live document and will be used
internally to define specific deliverables and
projects to keep us on track for the delivery."

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/sustainable-transport-strategy-draft-consultation/. 

 

On the specific question of CPZs, I think it's pretty clear from Cllr McAsh's recent approval of the decision on the Old Kent Road CPZ that the council will be pushing ahead with the borough wide roll-out regardless of responses to the consultation, perhaps with some specific tweaks to particular parking bays etc.  Seems to be a very hot issue in the OKR area because (i) there is still quite a bit of commercial/ light industry who rely on there being charge-free parking and (ii) there is a lot of new build housing that has been built without associated parking, in part on the assumption of better public transport (Bakerloo extension) that isn't happening.

The report and associated appendices are here:

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7910

Notably (given 87% objections, on not a particularly high number of responses):

"Although there were greater number of objections than support for the
scheme, officers recommend progressing with the proposals to implement
a controlled parking zone in the Old Kent Road area because a CPZ
offers an opportunity to rebalance the road space in an area where the
majority of people (60.3%) in the borough do not own cars. While there
are not necessarily parking issues in all roads at the moment, this
proposal protects against the impact of upcoming developments and
prioritises space for residents and businesses, as well as supporting our
Streets for People approach and Council Delivery Plan to make this a
borough for people and not their cars."

Worth having a look to see the approach taken to blue badge holders, social workers and carers and (in the Appendices) concerns raised by specific businesses, in case people want to flag up these sort of specific issues in the current consultation.

 

[Penguin68]

13 hours ago, malumbu said:

The ULEZ was a Tory Mayor's concept.  Non Labour councils also have CPZs, parking restrictions and the like.  Try and see past your bias.

To be fair, Boris's ULEZ was in Central, built up, congestion charge London - expansion first to the 'inner' ring road and then to to M25 is a Labour plan - with some exceptions of some roads the main air pollution problems are more concentrated in central, built up areas with very slow moving traffic than in more leafy suburbs. We now have a labour ploy for the proposed CPZ expansion in Southwark that it will make the streets prettier to have fewer cars, if that's actually achieved! At least air quality can be measured - prettiness is very much a subjective thing. And if our councillors are to be the judge of prettiness! Well, the mind boggles. But then, the world is prettier if its a kulak free Marxist world, I suppose.

[first mate]

There is some fudging around going on for sure. There are plans to massively extend a club car offering, so those cars will take the place of some private cars. Rows of lime bikes and e-scooters are hardly 'pretty'. Bike hangars, again to be massively extended are not pretty either. The whole aesthetics point is a red herring. The streets will not be prettier, just a different type of ugly. Whether they are cleaner and the air purer remains to be seen.

3 hours ago, legalalien said:

Just following on from the bit about the Movement Plan, don't forget that Southwark did an additional consultation last year on a refreshed Sustainable Transport Strategy - which is quite high level - and I don't know where it has got to - it doesn't look as if it has been signed off yet as I can't see it on the Southwark website (will have a quick look at the Forward Plan and see whether I can spot it).  That strategy is to be accompanied by an action plan:

"Each objective will be delivered through several
actions, which will be included in an action plan.
While the strategy has set objectives to be
reached by 2030, the action plan will be a
working live document and will be used
internally to define specific deliverables and
projects to keep us on track for the delivery."

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/sustainable-transport-strategy-draft-consultation/. 

 

On the specific question of CPZs, I think it's pretty clear from Cllr McAsh's recent approval of the decision on the Old Kent Road CPZ that the council will be pushing ahead with the borough wide roll-out regardless of responses to the consultation, perhaps with some specific tweaks to particular parking bays etc.  Seems to be a very hot issue in the OKR area because (i) there is still quite a bit of commercial/ light industry who rely on there being charge-free parking and (ii) there is a lot of new build housing that has been built without associated parking, in part on the assumption of better public transport (Bakerloo extension) that isn't happening.

The report and associated appendices are here:

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7910

Notably (given 87% objections, on not a particularly high number of responses):

"Although there were greater number of objections than support for the
scheme, officers recommend progressing with the proposals to implement
a controlled parking zone in the Old Kent Road area because a CPZ
offers an opportunity to rebalance the road space in an area where the
majority of people (60.3%) in the borough do not own cars. While there
are not necessarily parking issues in all roads at the moment, this
proposal protects against the impact of upcoming developments and
prioritises space for residents and businesses, as well as supporting our
Streets for People approach and Council Delivery Plan to make this a
borough for people and not their cars."

Worth having a look to see the approach taken to blue badge holders, social workers and carers and (in the Appendices) concerns raised by specific businesses, in case people want to flag up these sort of specific issues in the current consultation.

 

Thanks for this LA. Really useful as ever. Cllr Mc Ash is something of a weasel then, as he was so clear before about being led by residents on CPZ etc. 

[malumbu]

Who is this Boris?  Why do you all love ex Mayor ex PM fibbing barstool so much?  Johnson spoke about possible extensions so who's to know whether he would extend it if he'd stayed longer.  Politics, health and the environment didn't bother him, as long as it made him look good and gave him power.  I was there when he spoke about the value of close cooperation with Paris and Berlin.  Well he sacrificed that for his own career and sod the country.  Now what is this thread all about......

[Rockets]

Ex- was he forced to, as in the Tories said, you have to extend ULEZ or, when he was told you need to commit to generating revenue to pay back the bail-outs he offered up ULEZ expansion..."committed to" could be accurate in either context. Or did the Tories know the only way to generate that revenue would be ULEZ expansion?

 

As part of the settlement, mayor of London Sadiq Khan has committed to generating between £500m and £1bn additional revenue a year through measures such as road user charging. This would involve extending the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to cover all of Greater London by 2023.

[Nunheader]

Local authority consultation needs to follow legal guidelines known as the Gunning Principles described in detail at https://www.local.gov.uk/publications/new-conversations-20-lga-guide-engagement otherwise they may lay themselves open to judicial review proceedings. The Gunning Principles state:

1. Proposals must still be at a formative stage 

2. There is sufficient information to give ‘intelligent consideration.  The information provided must relate to the consultation and must be available, accessible, and easily interpretable for consultees to provide an informed response

3. There is adequate time for consideration and response 

4. Conscientious consideration must be given to the consultation responses before a decision is made. Decision-makers should be able to provide evidence that they took consultation responses into account.

 The consultative basis for turning the whole borough into a CPZ seems pretty thin from what people are describing.  Has any group been asked outright what they think of having the whole borough as a CPZ?    It is also  worrying there has been no integrated impact assessment of the policy  which affects most people in the borough, driver or not and may hit vulnerable groups hard. 

The Gunning Principles.docx

[CPR Dave]

I guess they assume that no one has the resources to go through judicial review and they've picked people off in a piece meal enough fashion to avoid there being group initiatives.

 

On this: 

Quote

...it will make the streets prettier to have fewer cars,

 

Have you seen the state of what the Councillors put in on Grove Vale. Those benches and planters etc that costs us tax payers tens of thousands of pounds now look utterly dreadful.

 

The council doesn't even look after the stuff it makes us pay for.

[trinidad]

I think we know this labour controlled borough is keen to introduce paid parking for all residents in the borough, in the same way as neighbouring Lambeth. We are all responsible for providing the green light for this to happen because, in the last local elections, despite Labour falsely introducing CPZ on ED and West Peckham, we still voted the Labour councillors back in. The best way to address issues is to use your vote wisely at the ballot box.   

[mr.chicken]

29 minutes ago, trinidad said:

we still voted the Labour councillors back in

For the first time in my life I voted Labour in the last round precisely because of their record on this kind of thing. There is no "still" about it. Never gonna vote Tory but the Lib Dems decided to try and mop up those Tory votes by aligning themselves strongly against the LTNs etc. Hard no from me.

30 minutes ago, trinidad said:

despite Labour falsely introducing CPZ on ED

You know I'm pretty sure the CPZs are real not false.

[Siduhe]

On 05/07/2023 at 18:04, Moovart said:

Councillor Andy Simmons says that the borough wide CPZ consultation and decision was made in 2019.  Does anyone remember that happening. Have to say I don't recall any borough wide consultation on CPZ.

I remember that. It wasn’t consulted on but was referred to in an internal Southwark report attached to some Council minutes. I posted the timetable for introducing the borough wide CPZ from the report on here but then the Southwark report which mentioned it was withdrawn, with councillors saying it was not formal policy and had been issued in error. Let me see if I can find the post. 

[Rockets]

There are going to be two meetings at Dulwich Library to discuss with councillors. You have to book tickets be quick cos rumours suggest some people got tipped off about this ahead of the general release.

 

Click on tne Evenbrite link to register

 

 

[first mate]

So Dulwich Clean Air have already had a heads-up? How did they get to hear about it?

[Spartacus]

Amazing, so something that will effect so many has a limited by tickets consultation meeting.

Obviously the council don't want everyone ascending on mass, to control numbers for safety and possibly to also control the narrative 🙄 

[modernMajorGeneral]

We're a group organised to oppose what the council is doing in our areas of queen's road and Nunhead. Because of the borough+wide approach our fight is the same. Anyone free to join our community meeting at the ivy house on Monday is welcome and we can talk about how to fight together. Go to  opposethecpz.org.

[Siduhe]

7 hours ago, Siduhe said:

I remember that. It wasn’t consulted on but was referred to in an internal Southwark report attached to some Council minutes. I posted the timetable for introducing the borough wide CPZ from the report on here but then the Southwark report which mentioned it was withdrawn, with councillors saying it was not formal policy and had been issued in error. Let me see if I can find the post. 

Sadly - the attachment to my post from 2021 didn't survive the forum move, but the original post is here - 

Others have posted the response from councillors above, to the effect that the report had been issued in error and CPZs would not be introduced without local agreement.

Part of the reason I'm particularly irked is that I put in an FOI request at the time, which was eventually turned down on the grounds that the document was a draft and not Council policy. 

I did get a copy of the attached document which refers to a "recommendation" to introduce a borough-wide CPZ, so this has been policy formulated since at least then.  

Public reports pack 09032021 1830 Environment Scrutiny Commission.pdf

[malumbu]

1 hour ago, modernMajorGeneral said:

We're a group organised to oppose what the council is doing in our areas of queen's road and Nunhead. Because of the borough+wide approach our fight is the same. Anyone free to join our community meeting at the ivy house on Monday is welcome and we can talk about how to fight together. Go to  opposethecpz.org.

Hi modernmajorgeneral. I'd be interested to learn what your group are proposing to reduce emissions from cars.  If you are opposing something you need alternatives rather than maintaining the status quo.  Are those not supporting your campaign welcome at my community pub?

[first mate]

10 hours ago, Siduhe said:

Sadly - the attachment to my post from 2021 didn't survive the forum move, but the original post is here - 

Others have posted the response from councillors above, to the effect that the report had been issued in error and CPZs would not be introduced without local agreement.

Part of the reason I'm particularly irked is that I put in an FOI request at the time, which was eventually turned down on the grounds that the document was a draft and not Council policy. 

I did get a copy of the attached document which refers to a "recommendation" to introduce a borough-wide CPZ, so this has been policy formulated since at least then.  

Public reports pack 09032021 1830 Environment Scrutiny Commission.pdf 551.89 kB · 5 downloads

Thanks for this Sidhue.

Others on here will argue the end justifies the means, but I cannot agree. This is undemocratic and not transparent at all. How can we trust a council that behaves this way?
 

To add to all of the above, which is pretty damning, especially your comment on the response to your FOI request, Labour did not have this is their manifesto. There is absolutely no mandate to impose any of this.

Edited July 9, 2023 by first mate

[mrwb]

It's obviously a cash grab. LTN fine money drying up probably? No reason for controlled parking in my part of ED.

Can see see Southwarks budget publicly somewhere and where all the money is going?

 

[modernMajorGeneral]

10 hours ago, malumbu said:

Hi modernmajorgeneral. I'd be interested to learn what your group are proposing to reduce emissions from cars.  If you are opposing something you need alternatives rather than maintaining the status quo.  Are those not supporting your campaign welcome at my community pub?

The council must show evidence that the cpz achieves it's goals. As it can't (or it would have done so) it must engage with local areas to find the appropriate solutions for each area. The borough is diverse. A blanket CPZ policy is illogical.

45 minutes ago, mrwb said:

It's obviously a cash grab. LTN fine money drying up probably? No reason for controlled parking in my part of ED.

Can see see Southwarks budget publicly somewhere and where all the money is going?

 

The council is obliged to show income and spending on parking and fines. The link from its website is broken. I wonder why?

10 hours ago, malumbu said:

Hi modernmajorgeneral. I'd be interested to learn what your group are proposing to reduce emissions from cars.  If you are opposing something you need alternatives rather than maintaining the status quo.  Are those not supporting your campaign welcome at my community pub?

You're welcome to attend but it won't be that sort of meeting. We'd love to have a discussion with the council and hear all sides from the community. Why not write to your councillors and ask them to talk to us.

[Penguin68]

10 hours ago, malumbu said:

If you are opposing something you need alternatives rather than maintaining the status quo

I'm sorry (no I'm not) but that's complete rubbish. Maintaining the status quo is an entirely acceptable option on many occasions. Only an idiot or a troll would suggest otherwise. You may need alternatives for some issues, but by no means all. There may be no valid solution to a problem, in which case doing nothing is far more sensible than doing something which doesn't work, which has cost, inconvenience and no acceptable outturn. For you, reading your posts, the only acceptable solution to, it would seem, any problem is to ban car and car usage, or get as close to that as can be managed. You will in fact accept no other solutions, whatever the problem is. And, as I gather you in fact have no dog in a local fight which this is, your opinion would belong in the Lounge, where you would like everything traffic based to be lodged, rather than on a board which addresses local to ED issues. Perhaps you could start your own 'I hate cars' thread there, and not bother local to ED people on this board discussing local to ED problems.