Southwark-wide CPZ

[CPR Dave]

Good idea Rockets - that way the percentages for any particular option will look lower.

[JMK]

is there a lawyer who can advise at a high level as to the legal basis upon which Southwark Council can implement a CPZ such as this and the routes available to challenge it, if any?

It strikes me as possibly being "ultra vires" but that's a question of law

And certainly disproportionate to anything to do with traffic management

thanks in advance

[rollflick]

Actually it would be unlawful for Southwark NOT to implement CPZs across all of its roads.

One of the areas where this debate has become so muddled is in asking what Southwark's mandate is. In London, the Mayor is responsible for transport, with the boroughs' role limited to implementation of the Mayor's Transport Strategy. Southwark's Local Implementation Plan was only approved after it was strengthened (an earlier draft was heavily criticised) to include motor traffic reduction measures including borough wide CPZs, in order to meet climate, air quality, road safety, public transport etc. targets.

Southwark now has a legal duty to get on with implementation:

151 Implementation by a London borough council.

(1) Where the Mayor has approved a local implementation plan, or a local implementation plan as proposed to be revised, submitted to him under section 146(1) above, the London borough council which submitted the plan—

(a) shall implement the proposals contained in it

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/section/151

Of course you can try voting for that Susan lady, the one who's a fan of Boris, Liz and Donald, to get rid of Sadiq next year. But she has more chance of getting in that a legal challenge succeeding.

[first mate]

You may have a point, but if that is the case, why has it not been stated by Cllr McAsh. If it were a decision that in effect had been imposed, as you seem to suggest, I have little doubt Cllrs would be making it very clear that the matter was out of their hands and not, as McAsh did and an assembly meeting, state that consultation had taken place and therefore moves were mandated?

[JMK]

it's a question of law, not of implementation

a quick, non-legal review suggest that it is clearly not in line with the UK govt's "Statutory guidance for local authorities in England on civil enforcement of parking contraventions"

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions

In particular, just to cite two examples of non-compliance:

1. it is not fair to the motorist

2. it is principally a revenue raising exercise

 

The London Mayor's transport plan is secondary to UK legislation and must be in compliance with that, not the other way round

 

 

Edited July 19, 2023 by JMK

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

You may have a point, but if that is the case, why has it not been stated by Cllr McAsh. If it were a decision that in effect had been imposed, as you seem to suggest, I have little doubt Cllrs would be making it very clear that the matter was out of their hands and not, as McAsh did and an assembly meeting, state that consultation had taken place and therefore moves were mandated?

I suspect that is because there is zero proof that CPZs have any influence on the items stated by Rofflick within the Mayor's Transport Strategy.

If the council claimed they do then it would open them up to action - the Mayor and councils are playing the "we were told to do it game" with no-one actually taking responsibility for the decision.

Remember CPZs have been around in many London boroughs for a long time and I am not aware of any evidence they actually reduce the number of cars owned within the area. It's worth nothing that Aldred's research in Lambeth showed that, when it came to LTNs, car ownership had actually increased by 9% within the LTN area since implementation.

 

If you look at Islington's CPZ website it doesn't try to use them to greenwash their like Southwark do: https://www.islington.gov.uk/parking/parking-restrictions/controlled-parking-zones

 

Their stated benefits of CPZs are (and the discouraging vehicles from driving through the borough is tenuous at least in terms of it's measurable benefit to climate change):

 

• easier for residents to park near their homes
• improved safety, with better visibility at junctions
• easier access for emergency services, delivery and removal vans
• reduced traffic and pollution by discouraging vehicles from driving through the borough.

[rollflick]

1 hour ago, JMK said:

it's a question of law, not of implementation

a quick, non-legal review suggest that it is clearly not in line with the UK govt's "Statutory guidance for local authorities in England on civil enforcement of parking contraventions"

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions

In particular, just to cite two examples of non-compliance:

1. it is not fair to the motorist

2. it is principally a revenue raising exercise

The London Mayor's transport plan is secondary to UK legislation and must be in compliance with that, not the other way round

Ah, another great example of how muddled this debate can get.

The guidance JMK quotes is about councils taking over enforcement powers from the police - it's not about implementing parking restrictions in the first place.

The Mayor's Transport Strategy is required by and underpinned by the GLA Act 1999, so it is statutory. By contrast the guidance JMK quotes is just guidance, as it indeed says in its intro. 😑

There's lots of research about parking management being one of the most effective levers for modal shift, less though than road pricing. In any event, for a successful judicial review, you'd need to show that it was irrational for a council to think it might have that effect. Any competent lawyer would run a mile from trying to argue that.

[Rockets]

Rollflick - how does parking management becoming an effective lever for modal shift when an area that already has at least 68% of local journeys done by foot implements a CPZ? And remember the excuse given for the first CPZ in Dulwich was to supposedly, ahem....allegedly...to tackle the swathes of commuters driving in from Kent to park along Melbourne Grove........doesn't it make you think that the council is trying to grab any excuse for the CPZ and this time it just happens to be a convenient vehicle for a bit of greenwashing - triggering all those passionate about climate change to jump on the CPZ bandwagon? If you believed everything the council told you you would believe that the private car was the number 1 contributor to the climate crisis.

[JMK]

Rollflck

you seem very confused, aka muddled

Quote

The guidance JMK quotes is about councils taking over enforcement powers from the police - it's not about implementing parking restrictions in the first place.

 

As stated clearly in the Act, it's a civll matter not a criminal matter

Secondly, the Act clearly states the local authority is obliged to follow the guidance published by the UK govt i.e. this is a legal obligation

The transport plan may well be required by the GLA however, there are at least 4 or 5 other pieces of UK legislation that apply here incl. HA, RTA, NRSWA and the IA

It is not surprising that there could be conflicting legal obligations and council policies.

The fact the Southwark has a plan and the Mayor has approved it does not mean that is is legally compliant with all UK legislation.

Selectively and subjectively choosing something that supports your position only serves to undermine any argument that you may have as it's clearly neither objective nor grounded in law.

Further evidenced by your last point as research of modal shift is irrelevant to any judicial review as this is only concerned with a question of law and specifically whether or not a local authority (Southwark Council in this case) is acting outside of its legal authority.

Hence, I refer back to my original post wondering if there's a competent lawyer who understands the web of legislation who can opine.

 

[Rockets]

JMK - are you sure you're not a competent lawyer as you are are providing some legal lessons to some on here....;-)?

[CPR Dave]

There is also a statutory requirement for proper consultation before a council implements restrictions on parking - compliance with which  looks very dubious in this instance.

The PRO-cpz lot have been talking a load of old bollocks too which further muddies the debate. That's how it works now though.  Twist the truth and gaslight the electorate. 

 

For example, the council would be acting unlawfully if it imposed any CPZs in contravention of the The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 regardless of whether or not they had the blessing of Rofflick, Sadiq Khan And Southwarks cyclists. 

 

[rollflick]

1 hour ago, JMK said:

Rollflck

you seem very confused, aka muddled

As stated clearly in the Act, it's a civll matter not a criminal matter

Errr no and JMK you are clearly way out of your depth. Please stop confusing others besides yourself. It is section 72 that enabled decriminalisation of traffic offences, hence the creation of the wonderfully named Civil Enforcement Officers to replace parking wardens: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/part/6/crossheading/civil-penalties-for-road-traffic-contraventions

Yes there will be separate statutory consultation - the clue is in Southwark calling the current round "informal" - but that is basically procedural rather than a vote.

As for Rockets asking how CPZs can work if allegedly 68% of local trips are on foot, well at risk of stating the obvious, that still leaves a fair amount of driving. There's lots of peer-reviewed research on the internet about parking management if you are the sort that does your research e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136192092200147X#s0010. That highlights the importance of reducing parking space not simply charging for it and enabling shared mobility, if we are to reduce inequality as well as emissions. Fortunately that is what Southwark is proposing here.

 

[CPR Dave]

Not sure that research into parking habits in Urban Madrid carries over into suburban Dulwich. Do you have anything less disingenuous?

[Rockets]

Rollfick, maybe you should stop looking for research from Madrid and take a look a little closer to home....maybe start with Southwark's own Transport Reoort for Dulwich from 2018....

 

Withi that you will learn that.....The remaining 30%+ is not just huge amounts of driving I am afraid when you factor in cycling and public transport as well into the remainder - car journeys whether as a driver or passenger accounted for 27% of internal trips. Also throw into the mix that Dulwich (in 2018) had the highest level of under 19s and over 65s of any part of the Borough (39% of tne population compared to  a borough average of 30%) and both both age ranges always equate to higher car ownership due to mobility issues/demands in both groups then Dulwich was doing very well in terms of active travel. Old people and young people tend to be more reliant on car transport for obvious reasons. 

 

The very same report cites that the lower east/west public transport connectivity "is reflected in higher numbers of people travelling from/to neighbouring boroughs by car".

 

And cars were used for 50% of outbound journeys to neighbouring boroughs and non-neighbouring boroughs (with being a passenger in a car rising from 7% for internal trip to 18% for outbound longer trips). Cycling accounted for 6%, walking 12%, rail 16%, bus and coach 17% and motocyle 1%.

So it is clear cars were being kept for longer journeys, many of which were being predicated by poor transport links.

 

So does that make you think people will drop their cars because of CPZs or will they just pay the money and keep the car because their longer journeys are dependent on it? Its pretty much what has happened in other boroughs that brought in CPZs and and many of those boroughs (like Islington) have much better transport links and a different age demographic). Can you find any research from an equivalent London Borough that backs up your assertions?

 

The devil is in the detail and much of it is in that fascinating Dulwich Transport Report - which is haunting our council right now and really is a smoking gun. I do note they have not done one since 2018....one can only speculate as to why....probably because it would further undermine their narrative.

A lot of this stuff is so bleedingly obvious when you look at the council's own numbers it's amazing they have tried to pull the wool over people's eyes. 

 

[march46]

Parking restrictions are 100% a positive step forwards and without doubt will reduce the number of car journeys in the area. 

I’ve already heard from friends in the proposed Dulwich Village zone who have made the decision to get rid of their cars, since this consultation started - seems it was the final nudge they needed.

 

Edited July 20, 2023 by march46

[JMK]

Rollflick

unfortunately, you continue to put forward incorrect and false information

The Traffic Management Act 2004 that you state "is section 72 that enabled decriminalisation of traffic offences" was in fact the 3rd in a series of acts covering this area

The RTA 1991 was the first statute which decriminalised certain traffic offences, including parking enforcement

Continuing to put forward incorrect and false information which deliberately misleads others only serves to undermine your position

 

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, march46 said:

Parking restrictions are 100% a positive step forwards and without doubt will reduce the number of car journeys in the area. 

I’ve already heard from friends in the proposed Dulwich Village zone who have made the decision to get rid of their cars, since this consultation started - seems it was the final nudge they needed.

 

"without doubt will...."

"I've already heard from friends..."

 

What was it the pro-LTN lobby said about anecdotal evidence........it seems that some are happy to use it this time round...

 

Trust me if there was a shred of evidence that CPZs reduced car ownership the council would be shouting it from the rooftops and would have plastered it all over the CPZs flyers and I bet you there has been no more pronounced reduction in car ownership figures in boroughs with CPZs than those without (compared to the rate of decline in London as a whole). LTNs were heralded as a means to reduce car ownership yet in Lambeth a 9% increase was seen in car ownership within LTNs since they went in - can anyone explain why that might be?!

 

I would hazard a guess that after the CPZs go in in Dulwich there will be zero reduction in car ownership - but probably more people paving over their front gardens and paying for a drop kerb!

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 17/07/2023 at 10:44, Rockets said:

Fully supportive of means-tested road pricing - the means-tested is an important part as only that can be considered fair to everyone but I have seen no talk of that. Interesting dynamic comes into play if road-pricing does come in in light of Cllr McAsh's "justice" mantra....

There is always some *cough* entirely reasonable and specific problem with any specific scheme *cough*, which should not distract from a very genuine support for reducing car use in principle (if never in practice).

Don't worry, I buy it rocks 😉

 

[first mate]

7 hours ago, Rockets said:

"without doubt will...."

"I've already heard from friends..."

 

What was it the pro-LTN lobby said about anecdotal evidence........it seems that some are happy to use it this time round...

 

Trust me if there was a shred of evidence that CPZs reduced car ownership the council would be shouting it from the rooftops and would have plastered it all over the CPZs flyers and I bet you there has been no more pronounced reduction in car ownership figures in boroughs with CPZs than those without (compared to the rate of decline in London as a whole). LTNs were heralded as a means to reduce car ownership yet in Lambeth a 9% increase was seen in car ownership within LTNs since they went in - can anyone explain why that might be?!

 

I would hazard a guess that after the CPZs go in in Dulwich there will be zero reduction in car ownership - but probably more people paving over their front gardens and paying for a drop kerb!

Indeed, the last point could be a real unintended consequence and possibly one that is not great for the environment. 

Another issue and potential unintended consequence, involves council plans to repurpose public space by allocating more of it to club and hire car schemes. There is research that indicates this encourages a demographic who might not have owned a car or driven much before to now consider driving as a more viable option, thereby increasing the range of people who use cars.

Edited July 20, 2023 by first mate

[Rockets]

On 06/07/2023 at 18:05, Rockets said:

Transport is becoming a bit of a political hot potato in London. Keir Starmer refused to be drawn today on whether he supported Ulez expansion or not because the Labour candidate in the Uxbridge by-election wants it delayed and Sadiq Khan doesn't - its all going to get very interesting in the run up to the mayoral election next year.

 

BBC News - Uxbridge by-election: Keir Starmer won't say whether he backs ULEZ expansion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66124191

As I was saying. What happened in Uxbridge last night will likely have trickle-down ramifications for local transport issues here. Sadiq may be worried that his tenure as mayor could come to a grinding halt over Ulez and I do wonder whether there will now be a Labour HQ downwards review of voter sentiment towards the measures the mayor and councils are implementing and the impact that could have on the May elections. Keir should have cleaned-up last night but Uxbridge and ULEZ is skewing the narrative and the blame is being laid at Sadiq's door over ULEZ. Angela Rayner has been saying this morning that "ULEZ is a big issue" which is political speak for "Sadiq, you're causing HQ issues that may have bigger ramifications" but is it too late to delay ULEZ until after the next elections (mayoral and national) or is the damage already done and will the electorate see through that?

[malumbu]

Doubt it.  Election is over a year ago and ULEZ will be embedded by then.  Clutching at straws.

[Rockets]

Mayoral election is in May...........

[first mate]

Yes, Labour need to have a rethink. Cllr McAsh strikes me as politically quite astute (changing his strapline from marxist to socialist) and possibly rather ambitious. Still time to change the current local agenda.

[Rockets]

He probably needed to change from Marxist to socialist to ensure his longevity within his own party such is the purge of the Corbynistas.......

 

This will trickle down to activities like CPZs and LTNs - if Labour thinks people are turning against their local and regional policies they will need to course-correct.  In the same way Labour used the national agenda to steer the local council elections we are probably now going to see local issues steering the regional and national election agenda.

 

Khan can't do a U-Turn on ULEZ can he - the fiscal hole he is in would get even deeper if he did surely? 

 

Gotta love politics but we are the political football in all of this!

 

[legalalien]

This paper from think tank Centre for London is worth a read in particular the suggestions of various ways councils could use controlled parking to achieve their policy aims (eg capping numbers of residents permits , not giving new residents an automatic right to a permit as a means of reducing car ownership)

https://centreforlondon.org/reader/parking-kerbside-mangement/

The report was part funded by various councils ( not Southwark) so imagine these are options that will be given serious consideration.