Southwark-wide CPZ

[first mate]

https://opposethecpz.org/2023/08/28/funding-for-legal-advice/

Therefore by supporting the above there is a chance the council may be forced to hold a real consultation, where the question is asked if you the resident actually want a CPZ.  At least then we'll know to what extent the council are choosing to ignore residents wishes by imposition of a non-mandated borough-wide CPZ in a wholly undemocratic way.

 

 

[march46]

If anyone is thinking of donating it’s worth remembering the now defunct Dulwich Alliance’s efforts to seek a judicial review. Donations totalled £28,250 and it would seem all that happened was lawyer’s advised against pursuing legal action.

[malumbu]

It's not exactly an informed or  balanced campaign

"....very limited local transportation."   Well that's bollox"

"This is clearly nothing more than a money-making scheme and is already causing stress and anxiety to many of our residents"

And that is a bit knee jerk.

It's also not clear what the grounds are.  So like the ULEZ challenge may be a waste of time and money.  I'm probably one of the few people who has made a Judicial Review application, not getting past the first hurdle, despite encouragement from a solicitor and barrister (and the ££££S a few of us paid to them, me being the majority funder).  It was a planning decision, and I don't regret what we went through (ironically the build never went ahead but that is for another thread).

Unless you get pro bono legal support I expect you are talking £20 to 30k

I'll watch with interest

 

 

 

[first mate]

Pretty clear really.
 

CPZ in Nunhead and other parts of the borough not mandated. No democratic consultation process, that is the opportunity to say 'no' to CPZ as part of a consultation. It is also true that, for example, Nunhead, like other parts of the borough does not have a parking issue and it also does not have great transport links.

 

[mr.chicken]

The CPZ is not purely about problem parking areas so the argument that some areas don't "need" is is specious.

 

It's also to disincentivise driving, because people are dying in droves due to pollution and the roads are so clogged that it's hard to have great bus links.

The council most certainly has a mandate on public transport and the environment and the CPZ checks both boxes.

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

"....very limited local transportation."   Well that's bollox"

Well, not according the council's own 2018 Transport report into Dulwich which covered Dulwich area PTAL scores....but you know that already.....but here it is in case you have forgotten from the last time I had to post it.......;-)

 

The Dulwich area has a low level of public transport accessibility. Areas around the main stations only reach a PTAL 3 and The Village a PTAL 2 whilst the main commercial area around East Dulwich has a PTAL 3. Other parts of Dulwich, particularly those where schools are located have a level 2 of accessibility translating into a higher use of car and coach for pupils outside of Dulwich.

Edited August 29, 2023 by Rockets

[first mate]

As for the Council's mandate on public transport, what has it done thus far to improve these? If all this was contingent on CPZ then why did they make absolutely no mention of it in their manifesto? 

[malumbu]

I couldn't give a monkeys about PTAL scores Rocks, I've lived in SE London for a long time and public transport has been fine, there are routes that are better, there are less good ones, Oyster made buses faster, the Overground connected us to the tube from HOP or Peckham, the single fare for multiple buses changing within an hour, it's probably the cheapest public transport in the UK, yes some routes have been cut, in particular post Covid but my glass is very much half full, whilst you dropped yours and it smashed on the ground. 

Edited August 29, 2023 by malumbu

[first mate]

Whatever happened to the light-hearted and positive version of Malumbu? Suddenly it is all bollox and not giving a monkeys.

Tell us, if as the chicken maintains, borough -wide CPZ is all part of the council's mandated plan to improve public transport why did they not simply state that in their manifesto. Why be oblique?

just to add, it would seem the council don't share your glass half full view of local transport or surely they would not have bothered to highlight it in their manifesto and campaign.

[Rockets]

38 minutes ago, malumbu said:

I couldn't give a monkeys about PTAL scores Rocks

Of course you don't because the fact the council has stated that Dulwich PTAL scores are low doesn't suit your narrative.

Maybe the part of London that you live in has good PTAL scores but Dulwich certainly does not.

 

[legalalien]

15 hours ago, mr.chicken said:

The CPZ is not purely about problem parking areas so the argument that some areas don't "need" is is specious.

 

It's also to disincentivise driving, because people are dying in droves due to pollution and the roads are so clogged that it's hard to have great bus links.

The council most certainly has a mandate on public transport and the environment and the CPZ checks both boxes.

That’s the point to be made though, isn’t it - that the powers under the road traffic act are only intended to be used for limited purposes, and using them to achieve the aims you mention isn’t permitted by the Act. I think that’s the likely argument with some claims of predetermination thrown in?

[mr.chicken]

@legalalien, are they? Specifically to which bit of legislation do you refer?

[legalalien]

I’m assuming they’re using the same powers they’ve used for previous CPZ orders. 
 

eg https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/172263/Controlled-Parking-Zone-OKR-notice-dated-9-March-2023-.pdf

I think these are the provisions also mentioned in the oppose the CPZ material?

As a non car owner I’m not terribly motivated to spend time and energy researching the rationale / amendment history of the various provisions, but it seems to me eminently arguable that you can’t use powers conferred for the purposes of facilitating the movement of road traffic and ensuring the availability of residential parking with the aim of disincentivising driving and reducing air pollution -even if the latter are perfectly legitimate policy aims for the council more generally. As I say just a first blush impression, will leave it to those involved in the campaign to look at the detail. I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw the council starting to talk less about air pollution and reduction of private cars in the CPZ context and more about things like improving traffic flow, buses etc. and making sure there is enough parking available for residents (I’m expecting them to justify CPZs in areas that don’t currently have parking pressure by reference to some sort of prediction of future parking pressure caused by CPZs being implemented in neighbouring areas. Arguably though, if CPZs disincentivise driving  you’d expect parking pressure to reduce?).

I’ll also be interested to see how they are going to justify a CPZ within the Dulwich LTN where there’s neither traffic nor an issue with off street parking, nor new build homes without allocated parking spaces, which have been a factor in some previous decisions. We’ll see.

[first mate]

LL a fascinating and very well argued post. You have captured some of the inherent contradictions in the council approach perfectly and it will be interesting to see if their underpinning rationale/narrative changes in light of potential legal issues you identify. It is so useful to have a poster with some legal knowhow on here.

[Rockets]

I second that - Legal that is really interesting. I do feel the council are running down a dead-end of CPZs and they may be running out of a goodwill runway from a legal perspective. It seems to me (and before Mr Chicken jumps in - I have no legal background whatsoever) but it appears they have been able to bend the rules with the LTNs and have used that momentum on CPZs but they might come a cropper - the "second" consultation promise looks like a U-turn because they know what they are doing now is risky. I do also think the judge in the ULEZ case might have put the cat amongst the pigeons within the council/s and I bet they are determining whether the bar for the consultations needs to be raised as he was critical of the robustness of the ULEZ consultation and that asked a simple yes or no question (but they ignored the majority response against). The last thing Labour HQ will want is a load of Labour councils getting a legal pummelling on these interventions especially as the Tories are clearly making it their No.1 (and seemingly only) election focus.

[malumbu]

Just out of interest Rocks what do you like?  You dislike most cyclists.  Schemes to discourage less driving and pollution.  And public transport. I'm the complete opposite.

Go on amaze me.

[legalalien]

I don’t know, I think it’s possible to get too hung up on the flaws in the consultation process per se - if they carry out the process incorrectly and there’s a successful complaint then all that happens is that they have to do it again properly and the end point gets delayed. It’s true that a consultation isn’t a referendum. And the council was always going to have to do a formal statutory consultation for each specific traffic order in addition to the engagement exercise they are doing now.

Maybe a better way to look at it is to recognise that the purpose of a consultation is to ensure that the council has all the relevant information in front of it to make a properly informed decision and takes that info into account. The decision shouldn’t have been made before the consultation and arguments /info raised in the consultation need to be considered with an open mind. So in some sense if you oppose the CPZ the consultation process is about putting forward counter arguments but also, I guess, gathering evidence to support a claim that the decision maker has predetermined the decision or (as noted above) is using powers for purposes not justified by the statutory scheme.  
 

If I’m right about upcoming parking pressure claims might be worth starting to document any evidence to the contrary.

Ps managed to dig out the council’s 2021 rationale for the CPZ roll out, for the record:

“Controlled parking zones and parking charges are the council’s only or main means of:
 Encouraging the use of lower emitting vehicles through variable charging based on vehicle emissions
 Controlling access to parking for future developments through covenants making properties permanently unable to access the council’s parking permit schemes and therefore ‘car free’
 Reduces the kerb space available to commuters both those driving to businesses in Southwark or parking in Southwark and completing their journey to central London by train or bus
 Encourage the switch from private car use to more active travel
 Enforcing vehicles idling by issue of a penalty charge
Therefore:
 CPZs can have positive impact on air quality by reducing commuting and allowing idling enforcement
 Could be charged for based on vehicle emissions to encourage our resident’s to move to a lower emitting vehicle
 Create streets which are more pleasant for pedestrians and cyclists to use
The existing CPZ program will form an important component of delivering the council’s plans and moving to a borough wide scheme would have a bigger effect; the movement plan, transport plan and air quality plan.
The introduction of a Southwark wide CPZ on a zone by zone basis over the next two years would support the council’s fairer future commitments in particular Theme 3 - a greener borough, Theme 4 - a full employment borough and Theme 5 – a healthier life, all will benefit from this proposal.”
   

 

 

[Rockets]

15 minutes ago, legalalien said:

The decision shouldn’t have been made before the consultation and arguments /info raised in the consultation need to be considered with an open mind.

And the above always feels like the Achilles Heal for the council as it always seems the consultation process (for many things) is just a way for them to tick the boxes and "validate" the procedural requirement to roll them out after they have taken their decision. They got away with it during Covid but now, with the increased attention on such schemes, they may not have such an easy ride of it moving forward. I do ponder why they are not doing this in East Dulwich but the surrounding areas and I wonder if the 68% against in the previous consultation could become a thorn in their side.

[legalalien]

from the 2021 document - looks like ED and the bit up by Rotherhithe are known problem areas (labelled tbc on the original)
 

[Rockets]

Interesting - the purple ones are where there are existing CPZs in play I think?

 

They ran a consultation in 2019 for the Rotherhithe and Surrey Quays one and omitted a "yes/no" response mechanism but in 2021 ran a consultation for the Trafalgar Extension zone where they did offer a "yes/no" response. Links both below

 

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/trafalgarcpz/results/zonetconsultationreport2021.pdf

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s102320/Appendix 3.pdf

 

In the Trafalgar one of all the roads consulted 19 were in support and 27 were against but they seem to have made the decision on the basis that the overall number of individual responses (120 yes/113 no) were slightly higher - which if they had applied that model in reverse to East Dulwich would have meant no CPZ anywhere.

Is it just me or are they seemingly making the rules up on a ward by ward basis?

 

[first mate]

Surely any consultation on these measures that did not have a yes/no response option should be run again then? How can consultation be viewed as valid if the process and questions are different, especially in regard to borough-wide proposals?

[Rockets]

On 23/08/2023 at 09:39, mr.chicken said:

No, compared to petrol, lithium is very much not a fire hazard. It's sometimes possible to get a lithium battery to catch fire. It is very, very easy to ignite petrol. Electric car fires hit the news because they are so rare. Petrol car fires are almost never in the news because they are too much of a regular occurrence (around 300 per day) to be newsworthy.

 

 

 

BBC News - E-bike and e-scooter fires at record high in London
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66672360

[malumbu]

Relevance to CPZ?

[mr.chicken]

33 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Relevance to CPZ?

In as much as it fits the cars are good everything is bad, no CPZ mantra it's relevant. Otherwise not so much.

 

[Rockets]

Relevant to your claim that lithium "very much is not a fire hazard".

 

Here is a thought, if the council is so keen on  putting in place a CPZ then why don't they reinvest some of the millions they get from that and the various LTN cameras in proper electric car charging infrastructure. That is far more likely to encourage more people to EVs.

 

This evening I wandered down an East Dulwich street and what was striking was that a large percentage of houses with off street parking have electric charging points and clearly if more people have access they will make the transition and if the council is truly committed to cleaner air then surely this would be a way to it. Ensure charge points are situated outside every house and I bet EVs would quickly replace petrol and diesel.

Edited September 1, 2023 by Rockets