Southwark-wide CPZ

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

But it could stay stationary. Just as most cars do, for at least 95% of the time on average

Curiously, and wearing other hats, many would argue that cars not travelling 24/7 would be a good thing. The fact is that public transport availability in general, and late at night and at many weekends in particular, is comparatively poor locally. As is East west public transport at any time. That's what many of us have our parked cars for, the many times there is no practical alternative. Because we don't want to be trapped in our homes. Or, living in London, only go as far as we can walk, when we are not young fit athletes. 

[Charles Martel]

On 06/09/2023 at 19:36, Earl Aelfheah said:

It really doesn’t. You can drive and park for free, between certain hours, or for a limited time, if you’re using your car to pick something up for example. At other times you may have to pay. What you can’t do for free, is store a car on the road long term, as for that you will need a residents permit. 

I don’t know why you think that we should all pay for you to store a private car on public land?  

Here is the big lie again.  There is no basis in the relevant law for the idea that resident’s parking permits in a CPZ are the equivalent to parking fees or rent of a parking space.   The relevant law is quite clear  in specifically prohibiting the use of controlled parking for the raising of revenue.   Stating that everyone who parks a car on the public road owes the council money and therefore the council should be implementing a CPZ everywhere to collect their rightful dues is an entirely false, made up, narrative.  This is not what the law says.  It should be clear that there is no automatic fee payable for parking a family car outside a family home on a quiet residential street with no parking pressure whatsoever.

Southwark council’s borough wide CPZ is about money.  People lie to get money all the time.  Therefore it should surprise no one that, despite the law prohibiting a CPZ being imposed purely to raise revenue, Southwark council wants to implement a borough wide CPZ purely to raise revenue.   Southwark will lie, lie and lie again to get what they want.  Hence their “Streets for People” propaganda is based on the bizarre falsehood that people can only ride bicycles, walk or use public transport if something is done about family cars parked outside family homes. Utter nonsense, given that most of my neighbours who  ride bicycles, walk or use public transport also own cars. 

People who disagree with the  borough wide CPZ should read and sign the petition.
https://opposethecpz.org/2023/07/27/southwark-wide-petition/

[megalaki84]

Raising revenue whilst preventing a social vice happens all the time. The government makes a lot of money from tobacco and alcohol.

Having a car in ED when you don't absolutely need one is a social vice and should be treated in the same way 

 

 

[first mate]

The central issue is that many people do need to use a car. The social vice line is simplistic. 

[Rockets]

And that does seem to be a key point that many, like megalaki84 fail to acknowledge. This overly-simplistic mantra of "you don't need a car" may apply to those saying it but doesn't necessarily apply those they are saying it to. Given a car may be the most, or second most, expensive purchase someone ever makes you can be pretty sure that they definitely need one - people don't make that sort of outlay without determining whether they need it or not.

[dougiefreeman]

11 hours ago, megalaki84 said:

Having a car in ED when you don't absolutely need one is a social vice and should be treated in the same way 

 

 

…. In your opinion.

[first mate]

The issue with this line is the massive assumption that a society and infrastructure that has slowly developed over decades around car use can simply be changed overnight. It can work if you are very wealthy/privileged but for most it increases anxiety and stress at a time many are struggling.

[Charles Martel]

On 19/09/2023 at 23:51, megalaki84 said:

Raising revenue whilst preventing a social vice happens all the time. The government makes a lot of money from tobacco and alcohol.

Having a car in ED when you don't absolutely need one is a social vice and should be treated in the same way 

 

 

You and others may wish that the law gave you the right to treat car ownership as a “social vice”, however you are making my point about the big lie for me.  It is clearly a lie to suggest that anything in the relevant law,  Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, in any way, shape or form defines car ownership as a “social vice” or anything that suggests a CPZ should be imposed as a deterrent to car ownership.  

In 2019 East Dulwich went through the CPZ consultation process according to the law.  Those who wanted a CPZ, for the reasons the law defines, got one.  The law has not changed, but Southwark council’s attitude has.  They have already purchased the ANPR cameras and employed the traffic wardens so obviously they will not let consultations get in their way this time.  Councillor McAsh now tells us we have no choice but to submit to their policy.  Well he would say that given the millions of pounds in revenue the new CPZs are likely to generate.  Money which will be extorted from working families and used to fund activists hobby horse projects such as making all pavements 2.4m wide.

Therefore, those of us who can must vote with our wallets and fund a judicial review of the whole cpz process in Southwark.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/opposethecpz/

[Rockets]

Have we seen the results of the council's "consultation" on the CPZs or is it still running?

[Spartacus]

I love the justification by James mCash "But once the zones are  established, we receive many positive comments from residents about how much nicer and safer their communities feel" 

Beside removing some existing on street parking, including residents parking over their own driveways, there is no real change to the street space to validate that comment. Plus how many is "many" in his quote ? 

Maybe he should become a spin consultant and not a teacher 🤔 

[first mate]

Cllr McAsh rounded off the last scrutiny session with his Land Commission Report where they are looking at use of MOL, Parks etc.. for "social good". His parting shot returned to his Streets for People initiative where he said he'd like to see table tennis played on the streets "we just have to get rid of the cars first".

I was staggered to find out that there is a waiting list of 7500 for cycle hangars in the borough, at a projected cost of 6.5 million. There were some rather woolly ideas on how this demand could be reduced.

[Spartacus]

I wonder how Southwarks ideal to remove cars from streets will tally with the Mayors drive to charge to drive. His latest salvo is of course the plan to charge for using the Blackwall tunnel. 

If there are no cars, TfL will face a drop in revenue from congestion, ULEZ and road / tunnel tolls. 

Would love to see how them circle's are squared off! 

[Charles Martel]

13 hours ago, first mate said:

Cllr McAsh rounded off the last scrutiny session with his Land Commission Report where they are looking at use of MOL, Parks etc.. for "social good". His parting shot returned to his Streets for People initiative where he said he'd like to see table tennis played on the streets "we just have to get rid of the cars first".

This comment just makes the point how out of touch with reality Councillor McAsh is with the “Streets for People” nonsense he wants to fund with CPZ revenue.  In the real world Southwark council are currently removing table tennis tables and benches from Camberwell Green because of anti-social behaviour. 

https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/camberwell/southwark-council-branded-ridiculous-after-removing-table-tennis-and-benches-to-tackle-anti-social-behaviour/

Few people with any experience of living in South London would want a bench placed outside their house for random strangers to congregate, yet seating every 100m for “pedestrian comfort”  is proposed in the “Streets for People” plan.  It should be obvious that this would be a recipe for anti-social behaviour.  

[Rockets]

Anyone else thinking that Southwark will have to u-turn on the timing of the CPZ rollout and kick the can down the road until after the general election? I can't imagine Labour will be doing anything locally to stir the "war on motorists" hornet's nest ahead of either the mayoral or general election.

[froggy]

On 26/09/2023 at 22:00, Spartacus said:

I wonder how Southwarks ideal to remove cars from streets will tally with the Mayors drive to charge to drive. His latest salvo is of course the plan to charge for using the Blackwall tunnel. 

If there are no cars, TfL will face a drop in revenue from congestion, ULEZ and road / tunnel tolls. 

Would love to see how them circle's are squared off! 

... if you assume that the purpose is indeed to raise cash rather than reduce pollution...  Think! 😂

[Charles Martel]

The latest news from the Oppose the CPZ campaign is that after their lawyers wrote to  Southwark council they were told that no decision has been made about the continued rollout to the Queens Road, Nunhead and three Dulwich CPZs and that the timing for a decision is undetermined.
Detail: https://opposethecpz.org/2023/09/28/update-on-judicial-review-to-stop-the-illegal-rollout-of-cpzs-across-southwark/

Summary: https://opposethecpz.org/2023/09/30/twtw-29-october-2023/

Obviously the council’s statements now are in direct contradiction to the council’s previously stated position that the decision had been made in 2019 etc and there was nothing anyone could say or do in opposition now.  In particular when councillor McAsh was asked about his 2019 blog post, which was in line with the law, he denied that the law still applied due to a change in council policy.  He said: “I want to be really really clear here, that the policy has changed so pointing out things I said before the policy had changed, when I described the previous policy isn’t a ‘gotcha’, because the policy has changed.”
https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/councillor-under-fire-for-a-blog-post-from-4-years-ago-that-contradicts-councils-cpz-policy/

While Southwark council can change their policy, fortunately they cannot change the law.  It is really difficult to read councillor McAsh’s comments now and see them as anything other than a blatant attempt to deceive people into accepting his CPZ policy simply so the council could extort money from ordinary people.  Given the amount of money involved all we can expect a more sophisticated pack of lies next time. 

[Rockets]

Ha ha, that would be the council's new policy to ignore resident views and input!!! Hilarious.

 

BTW, can anyone remember the timeline of rollouts the council put forward for all of the CPZs - was it more specific than 2024?

Edited October 3, 2023 by Rockets

[Spartacus]

Isn't James mCash a teacher? 

Surly that isn't a good example to set for kids or is it "do as I say not as I do" ? 

 

[legalalien]

I think this was the original timetable but the deadlines have been missed, obvs

 

[Rockets]

Yes I am pretty sure I read it would be as soon as they could (if not 2024). Going to be very interesting to see if that shifts until after any elections and whether that has a knock-on effect on the things they were planning to spend the revenue on (which of course has to go back into road and street infrastructure).

 

Cllr McAsh's get out on his statement in 2019 is very interesting - basically then we can't believe anything any elected official tells us for fear there's a change in "policy" at any point?

The policy change has clearly also included the removal of any ability for constituents to object to the measures they plan to implement on them.

Is it any wonder people have lost faith in politicians?

[Rockets]

Just received this email from Cllr McAsh....looks like they may be kicking a can down the road on these plans....probably no surprise there but one wonders why they hadn't done things like traffic surveys before spending money on the consultation.

 

 

Dear resident,

 

I wanted to write to you to thank you for your contribution to a recent consultation which sought views on controlled parking in your neighbourhood.

 

We wrote to every home in your area and we invited residents to respond to our consultations on proposed schemes. The intention was to understand local views in each area. 

 

We received a large number of responses to the consultations, and before progressing further with any of the proposals, we will now:

 

1.    consider the responses to the consultation and previous requests from residents 

2.    continue to engage with other stakeholders

3.    conduct traffic surveys

 

We will consider all relevant information before coming back to you with what we propose to do next. We need to carefully consider all the evidence.

 

Timeframes for next steps are still being finalised, but we appreciate that you may have been waiting to hear from us and the purpose of this email is to keep you up to date. We will be in touch with you again as soon as we can.

 

Once again, I would like to thank you and your neighbours for engaging with our consultation so far. It has been a really helpful process so far, and we are confident that your feedback, alongside other evidence, will help us find local solutions that respond to local circumstances, and help make your neighbourhood an even better place to live.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Cllr James McAsh

Cabinet Member for Climate Emergency, Clean Air and Streets

 

[first mate]

At the Scrutiny session he seemed very clear everything was going ahead, so not sure how really genuine that letter to residents is. It reminds me a bit of his response to One Dulwich, promising to look into data. On the other hand, being a very political politician (now Socialist not Marxist) he may just be trying to buy time, as you say, while presenting different faces and 'takes' according to his audience; has anyone else noticed how borderline besotted Margy Newens appears to be with him, when she chairs the Scrutiny sessions?

[Rockets]

What i suspect he means to say is that they will put everything on hold until after the election and when Labour get in they'll start painting the lines safe in the knowledge there will be no scrutiny and that they'll have the "mandate" to do whatever they want.

I found this in a Southwark News article so August next year was Southwark's goal for area-wide CPZs...

 

Southwark Council has hit back, citing its “ambitious plans to enhance the streets”, including 100 per cent controlled park zone (CPZ) coverage by August 2024. 

Edited October 7, 2023 by Rockets

[Spartacus]

It is interesting, due to tactical and protest voting during the last local elections, mainly to give the Tory party a bloody nose, we ended up with a landslide Labour win as did other councils.

That's not to dismiss loyal Labour voters and Southwark is a safe Labour seat. 

Now as a result, the council have no real opposition or scrutiny and issues like the one are being uncovered. 

Whilst I'm not advocating voting a Tory MP in, I would say think carefully before the next general election because if we end up with a Labour Council under a Labour mayor with a landslide Labour government then I suspect what we've seen so far will only be equivellent to the tip of the iceberg and new policies and schemes will come thick and fast.

There is always balance and scrutiny with opposition and it doesn't matter which party provides it. 

If we want fair schemes for all, not just a few, then we need to look at how we scrutinise our local council and officers. 

 

 

 

[indiepanda]

I just got an email from James McAsh saying the CPZ for Dulwich Hill isn't going ahead. In the email it says:-

I recognise that the council’s previous proposals fell short. Through the course of the consultation, residents in many areas told us that they did not need or want controlled parking. We listened to these concerns and undertook more work to understand parking pressure and traffic levels in these areas. This work supports the view of residents that controlled parking is not currently needed in the Dulwich Hill area.

Edited November 9, 2023 by indiepanda
Large blank space at foot