Southwark-wide CPZ

[Rockets]

And if Will and Sadiq were convinced there was going to be a ten-fold increase in cycling we really need to know why it's getting nowhere near and where those numbers came from and how are they going to deliver on them.

 

It sounds like it may have been over-excited blusto based on the pandemic.

 

I think cycle infrastructure is massively important but you can't keep adding more and more of it in the hope it triggers a revolution, especially when much of it negatively impacts other transport like buses.

 

13% is woefully low given the platform the pandemic provided and maybe time should be spent working out whether London will ever be an Amsterdam. Maybe London's size, topology and the fact most people live a long way out of the centre yet work in it (and many are well served by other transport links like trains and tubes) it just doesn't operate in a way that is conducive to mass cycling transportation. And I can't help but think that London has always been a fantastic walking city so many are happy to get transport in to central London and walk to their offices.

 

I do wonder what the cost of acquisition for each one of those 13% increased cyclist numbers actually is - both in terms of actual cost and cost to other transportation modes.

[Rockets]

The article is quite interesting with the councillors suggesting there will be two consultations in Nunhead, the current one and then a statutory one where people can object which will be run later.

 

I think the council's legal team may have had to intervene and have suggested a second one and I bet that input has been based of analysis of the judges' comments on the ULEZ challenge. I think Southwark have realised they are open to legal intervention if they don't give people the chance to say no - they can ignore the results but must be worried a judge might say there are problems if you don't give the right to say no.

 

So ludicrously, at a time when they tell us they have no money, they have to run two consultations for the same projects. I suspect they will have to do the same for Dulwich. 

 

https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/nunhead-councillors-say-people-will-get-chance-to-say-no-to-cpzs-but-it-wont-change-anything/

[heartblock]

My main issue with CPZ (and I do support the principle) is that someone with a 2-3 million pound house with off-Street parking and a garage can have a trade come and work on a bathroom, kitchen and not pay for parking. If I or anyone else in a flat with no off-Street parking and work across a month we have to pay guest parking for 20 days. So a tax on the poorest. And no trades will not pay... the customer pays.

Southwark should give all residents in flats or terraces with no off-street parking 20 days of free ‘guest’ passes, to at least address some levelling up. The more Southwark Council spends on the community, the more I see benefits for the wealthiest in our Borough and less for the poorest. Labour is no longer a Socialist endeavour. 

[march46]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

The article is quite interesting with the councillors suggesting there will be two consultations in Nunhead, the current one and then a statutory one where people can object which will be run later.

 

I think the council's legal team may have had to intervene and have suggested a second one and I bet that input has been based of analysis of the judges' comments on the ULEZ challenge. I think Southwark have realised they are open to legal intervention if they don't give people the chance to say no - they can ignore the results but must be worried a judge might say there are problems if you don't give the right to say no.

 

So ludicrously, at a time when they tell us they have no money, they have to run two consultations for the same projects. I suspect they will have to do the same for Dulwich. 

 

https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/nunhead-councillors-say-people-will-get-chance-to-say-no-to-cpzs-but-it-wont-change-anything/

No conspiracy Rockets, statutory consultation happens for every key decision after the initial consultation has ended. 

[mr.chicken]

2 hours ago, heartblock said:

My main issue with CPZ (and I do support the principle) is that someone with a 2-3 million pound house with off-Street parking and a garage can have a trade come and work on a bathroom, kitchen and not pay for parking. If I or anyone else in a flat with no off-Street parking and work across a month we have to pay guest parking for 20 days. So a tax on the poorest. And no trades will not pay... the customer pays.

I have no issue with a fixed number of guest days per year. They could also offer trade permits as well.

 

I do question though how much building work the poorest are getting done given that it's generally expensive and most people in that bracket rent rather than own, so can't get their own building work done.

I reckon this will hit landlords more than "the poorest". Do you have any numbers?

 

 

 

 

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, march46 said:

No conspiracy Rockets, statutory consultation happens for every key decision after the initial consultation has ended. 

But a second consultation - as in asking people whether the approve or not, which is the gist of the comments from the councillor? That's not usual is it? Did they do a second consultation after the first CPZ consultation a few years back?

 

The councillor says (and on the basis of this are we expecting a second one for Dulwich?

 

Cllr Sandra Rhule was the first to mention it on the night, stating: “You will get the chance to say no.
“The first consultation was to find out public opinion and it clearly worked. But the second one will give you the chance to say no. The statutory one – the official, legal one is the one where you get to say no.”

Edited August 11, 2023 by Rockets

[first mate]

So the second, 'official' consultation is a meaningless exercise simply to tick a legal box. People can say 'no' to CPZ in their droves but it will be imposed, against their wishes, anyway.

What then was the purpose of the first consultation if public opinion does not matter?

Where is the mandate for this CPZ imposition?

 

[heartblock]

5 hours ago, mr.chicken said:

I have no issue with a fixed number of guest days per year. They could also offer trade permits as well.

 

I do question though how much building work the poorest are getting done given that it's generally expensive and most people in that bracket rent rather than own, so can't get their own building work done.

I reckon this will hit landlords more than "the poorest". Do you have any numbers?

 

 

 

 

No, no numbers, bit busy with the full-time job... trying to stop people dying of cardio-respiratory disease...

....but I imagine Southwark haven't researched that piece of work either. One can be a homeowner and still be financially burdened. Weirdly rental is so expensive in ED, I imagine one has to be earning quite a lot.

Landlords pass on costs to their renters, so however you look at it, there is an issue. 

I have asked McAsh about trade permits .. about two years ago, and trade parking spaces... it was all ''yes, yes, a good idea.. yes, yes - I can see it's an issue'' shortly before the Council elections when asking for my vote.... and then... nothing.

ED Grove could host about 4  x trade parking spaces very easily and all residents would welcome a few 'free' (well not free, we all pay council tax) guest passes.

We all have boilers that break, windows that need fixing, etc. etc. why should people in flats and terraces be charged, while those with off-site parking have the privilege of not paying.

Oh if only I lived in Gilkes Crescent - with my three vehicles stored on - the road, my garage and my drive.. and the fourth in my second home in Suffolk/ Lake District/ Norfolk...how lovely, and a lovely traffic free road, with a future park on the corner.

Southwark Labour Party Council - serving the wealthiest in the borough, while charging the poorest. It's definitely Marxist ....sorry Socialist...ooooops .. no maybe Centrist? 

[Rockets]

The first thing delivery companies ask nowadays is "do you have controlled parking on your street", as they know the problems it causes for them and the increased risk of them getting pinged by a council eager to earn some revenue!

 

Definitely centrist nowadays - well if Keir has his way at least - it seems embracing champagne socialism is making a big comeback - Cllr McAsh will be gnawing his teeth as he smiles! 😉 - actually having an ex-city sugar trader as a councillor colleague must really test his Marxist beliefs!!!

26 minutes ago, heartblock said:

Oh if only I lived in Gilkes Crescent - with my three vehicles stored on - the road, my garage and my drive.. and the fourth in my second home in Suffolk/ Lake District/ Norfolk...how lovely, and a lovely traffic free road, with a future park on the corner.

On this - recently overheard in a Dulwich eatery two families discussing how they will both be in their houses in Cornwall at the same time so should get together.....Dulwich is definitely changing...and I am not sure for the better..... but that might be a thread someone needs to start! 😉

[Artemis]

I understand that home care companies will be allowed a maximum of 5 permits (which will cost £146 a year) per company for their staff to park when visiting clients.  The Southwark website state that these permits can be swapped between staff (how this works practically for larger organisations where staff travel from home and more than 5 are operating in Southwark at any time is, as yet, unclear).  Presumably these costs will need to be passed on to the client.  I find it very disappointing that care companies, who already struggle to recruit staff, and the elderly, disabled or vulnerable are going to be burdened with additional costs and administration.  Most of those receiving care probably aren’t in a position to drive themselves. The lack of compassion and consideration for those who cannot live independently without carers is troubling and I hope Southwark will rethink this position and allow carers to park without an additional cost or administrative burden.

[Rockets]

The Southwark zero-concession policy on things like this is very un-Labour (but not an isolated incident) and I do hope they do a U-turn on this as well.

 

Some members of the council seem to be letting their personal ideology on cars get in the way of their socialist principles.

[legalalien]

I haven’t really looked at the underlying CPZ rules but think I’m right that the relevant traffic management orders are made under section 45 of the Road Traffic Management Act, which would suggest that the key considerations are those set out in section 45(3) namely

“(3)In determining what parking places are to be designated under this section the authority concerned shall consider both the interests of traffic and those of the owners and occupiers of adjoining property, and in particular the matters to which that authority shall have regard include—

(a)the need for maintaining the free movement of traffic;

(b)the need for maintaining reasonable access to premises; and

(c)the extent to which [F6off-street parking accommodation, whether in the open or under cover,]is available in the neighbourhood or the provision of such parking accommodation is likely to be encouraged there by the designation of parking places under this section.”

 

I don’t recall seeing analysis on those points included in the decision reports on some of the previous CPZ decisions where the emphasis was on movement plan policies and active travel.  If I get bored on a wet afternoon I’ll have a look and see whether that’s the case. I imagine it might be arguable that active travel/ minimising car usage/ climate change etc could be improper / irrelevant considerations as regards designating parking spaces and maybe a question to be asked as to whether the statutory criteria have been given sufficient consideration ( the question of whether CPZ will result in people turning their front gardens into parking spots)? And also whether a policy of a borough wide CPZ is consistent with proper consideration of those statutory criteria? 
 

(disclaimer - no expert and may be off track here so would be interested to know if I am missing something..)

[intexasatthe moment]

I would have liked to attend Southwark's meeting at the library on Wednesday. I see that you need to book as " space will be limited "

Having tried to do so, I've been put on a "wait list". Have others found the same ? Any ideas on how many lucky people will be allowed to  attend ?

[alice]

Its a far smaller venue than the church.  I seem to remember crowds on the stairs unable to get in when it was LTNs being spoken about. 

[first mate]

This has stitch up written all over it. Registering for a place allows the council to know in advance who wants to attend and they can cherry pick. I bet the room is full of supporter groups and, as was evident earlier in the year, there is the mailing list that gives such groups advance notice. Further manipulation of outcomes by Southwark Labour.

Sorry to sound so cynical and my post will no doubt set off guffaws about conspiracies and tin hats, but I have no trust in this council.

Edited August 15, 2023 by first mate

[Rockets]

The very first set of East Dulwich CPZ  meetings years ago were an utter shambles there, people were lining the stairs and there were accusations that the council had tipped supporters off to get there early to fill the seats. I am pretty sure the council committed to finding bigger venues for future meetings on the back of that experience - so it makes you wonder why they are returning there. 

 

I wonder how many people are on the waitlist - I wonder if there are sufficient numbers to force the council to run another meeting? Is anyone planning to attend?

 

BTW just looked on the "consultation" link on the Southwark site and it says "informal consultation". Does anyone know whether that has always how it has been referred to or whether the informal part has been added recently - if so it may suggest the council is going to be forced to run a second consultation when people can express whether they want them or not? I can't help but think that the council is tying themselves in knots over this and their efforts to try and force this through without a proper consultation could backfire (and I am convinced the judge's remarks in the ULEZ review are influencing the new direction of travel as he was critical of the robustness of the consultation).

 

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/dulwich-hill-streets-for-people-consultation/

[mr.chicken]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

The very first set of East Dulwich CPZ  meetings years ago were an utter shambles there, people were lining the stairs and there were accusations that the council had tipped supporters off to get there early to fill the seats

I love the anti doing-anything-at-all conspiracy theories.

No one supports the CPZ! The only possible way supporters could be there is if the council "tipped off" a bunch of people who (and this is important to note) do not exist about a public meeting which had been advertised and widely circulated. Oh, those sneaky underhanded councillors! Whatever will they think of next?!

 

 

[Rockets]

Mr Chicken - did you attend the first CPZ meetings all those years ago? If you had you would have seen for yourself the shambles when the council massively misjudged the feeling against the CPZs and had to keep people outside because of over-crowding - that ain't a conspiracy theory - it's fact.

 

Did you also attend the Melbourne Grove LTN online meeting where the council only took questions from Clean Air Dulwich, sorry I meant select Melbourne Grove residents and forced anyone else into the chat room!?

There's more than enough evidence to suggest the council manipulates these events and platforms (remember the extension of the LTN consultation period and then Labour doorstepping Labour supporters to respond positively?) to their advantage so don't be surprised when people question how they manage and execute things.

[mr.chicken]

8 minutes ago, Rockets said:

 If you had you would have seen for yourself the shambles when the council massively misjudged the feeling against the CPZs and had to keep people outside because of over-crowding - that ain't a conspiracy theory - it's fact.

A a small number of people with strong feelings shouting down everyone else in the meeting does not mean there are over all strong feelings against the CPZ. This isn't a rageocracy.

[Rockets]

You weren't at the meeting we you...then you have no skin in this game at all because you clearly do not know what you are talking about?

The vast majority of the people at the CPZ meeting at the Library (both inside and outside the venue) all those years ago were against it - anyone who was there (and I was) will tell you that but, you know, don't let the truth get in the way of a good story and all that! 😉 

[Charles Martel]

17 hours ago, mr.chicken said:

A a small number of people with strong feelings shouting down everyone else in the meeting does not mean there are over all strong feelings against the CPZ. This isn't a rageocracy.

No, that is not what happened.  The meeting at the library in April 2019 happened after the council consultation had been done and the results on a road by road basis were known.  Rockets is correct that the majority of people who attended this meeting were against the East Dulwich CPZ, but that was reflective of the consultation result which everyone attending was aware of.  

The meeting was only a shambles in that many more people attended than could fit into the venue so half had to wait outside for a second sitting.  Other than that it was well conducted and as I remember it good natured.  People got to have their say, from the Lordship Lane traders to Southwark Cyclists on the extreme.  The councillors listened and the boundary of the CPZ was redrawn to reflect the consultation results.  A point Councillor McAsh made again only last November.  “In a democratic society, we all have a right to influence the world around us.”

There were people at the meeting who were in favour of the CPZ, but these were mainly from the well organised campaign group based around the East Dulwich station / Melbourne Grove area where there was clearly a problem with commuter parking.  I spoke to some of them at length while we were waiting outside the library and it was clear that they had problems parking their cars during the day due to non-residents parking in the area.  Obviously they did not share the hysterical anti-car views of Southwark Cyclists. 

Unfortunately these hysterical anti-car views now seem to have become Southwark Council policy despite the fact that McAsh and the other councillors at the meeting know full well they have no support whatsoever among residents.  Residents now no longer have a say in whether or not a borough wide CPZ is imposed upon them.  People should read the petition opposing this and, if they agree that democracy and the rule of law should be followed, sign it.

https://opposethecpz.org/2023/07/27/southwark-wide-petition/

[mr.chicken]

13 hours ago, Charles Martel said:

Unfortunately these hysterical anti-car views

Yep you sound like a reliable unbiased narrator giving a trustworthy and actuate account. 😂

[first mate]

21 hours ago, Charles Martel said:

No, that is not what happened.  The meeting at the library in April 2019 happened after the council consultation had been done and the results on a road by road basis were known.  Rockets is correct that the majority of people who attended this meeting were against the East Dulwich CPZ, but that was reflective of the consultation result which everyone attending was aware of.  

The meeting was only a shambles in that many more people attended than could fit into the venue so half had to wait outside for a second sitting.  Other than that it was well conducted and as I remember it good natured.  People got to have their say, from the Lordship Lane traders to Southwark Cyclists on the extreme.  The councillors listened and the boundary of the CPZ was redrawn to reflect the consultation results.  A point Councillor McAsh made again only last November.  “In a democratic society, we all have a right to influence the world around us.”

There were people at the meeting who were in favour of the CPZ, but these were mainly from the well organised campaign group based around the East Dulwich station / Melbourne Grove area where there was clearly a problem with commuter parking.  I spoke to some of them at length while we were waiting outside the library and it was clear that they had problems parking their cars during the day due to non-residents parking in the area.  Obviously they did not share the hysterical anti-car views of Southwark Cyclists. 

Unfortunately these hysterical anti-car views now seem to have become Southwark Council policy despite the fact that McAsh and the other councillors at the meeting know full well they have no support whatsoever among residents.  Residents now no longer have a say in whether or not a borough wide CPZ is imposed upon them.  People should read the petition opposing this and, if they agree that democracy and the rule of law should be followed, sign it.

https://opposethecpz.org/2023/07/27/southwark-wide-petition/

It is good to hear from people who actually know what has gone on. Good also to hear James McAsh own words, showing how he has reneged on promises to listen to all residents rather than simply impose.

 

[Penguin68]

Saying 'hysterical' is certainly a value judgement - and open for debate, although some councillors responses have not been entirely sanguine, as reported (and no doubt that might be endorsed by the TFL staffers who claim to have been bullied by them) - however the Council is on record as being 'anti-(private) car ownership' within the borough ('driving private cars out of the borough' I believe was the phrase, or close to it) - so labelling the council as 'anti-car' (rather than anti-pollution, for instance) seems entirely accurate, not to say trustworthy. As everyone on this thread is exhibiting bias (to have any opinion at all is to be biased one way or another) I have no problem with that. 

Curiously these threads about traffic issues have not attracted the disinterested (using these words properly) to participate - save of course those who have no 'interest' in Dulwich, not being residents thereof, but every interest in promoting their chosen point of view regarding modes of transport and the impact that Southwark may have on the lives of Southwark residents, even not being such themselves.

[mr.chicken]

2 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

Saying 'hysterical' is certainly a value judgement

In as much as comedic levels of bias are a "value judgement". In other words: not.

2 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

save of course those who have no 'interest' in Dulwich, not being residents thereof,

Ah yes all those non existent pro CPZ people who the council nefariously persuaded to turn up to the CPZ meeting despite, as we've well established now, not actually existing. 🤔