Southwark-wide CPZ

[first mate]

Ex Dulwicher said: "That woke leftie agenda of "make the place a bit nicer and a bit less car-dominated".

The wholly undemocratic agenda of "give people a few more options to travel around that don't rely on ownership and use of a car".

Those agendas? The ones that many councils around the country are bringing in via one form or another?

What evil bastards those councils are! Why can't they just plough a motorway through Dulwich College grounds to solve the South Circular problem? Honestly, no ambition..."

Once more, a prime example of stereotyping and hyperbole in order to fudge.

Who said "woke" or "leftie". Those are entirely your words Ex. 

 James McAsh and Southwark have not been honest or democratic in choosing to impose measures, possibly against the wishes of many. Their motivations for so doing are dubious, likely revenue related and McAsh has done a complete about turn on promises he made in regard to CPZs.

 

[Rockets]

Political downfalls are always predicated by lying, deceit and taking the electorate for idiots....its just then a case of whether you can convince enough of the idiots to vote for you! 😉

Ex- you're starting to go all Mr Chicken on us, please don't!

[mr.chicken]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

possibly against the wishes of many

 

LOL is that the best you can do, mate? "possibly" against the wishes of the many which is another way of saying "probably not against the wishes of the many". 🤣

And good on you for more personal attacks, @Rockets those are a well known good substitute for rational arguments. Anyway we are coming for your car, and will force you to parade around in Lycra.

[Spartacus]

26 minutes ago, mr.chicken said:

And good on you for more personal attacks, @Rockets those are a well known good substitute for rational arguments. 

@Rockets you just got strong respect there from the Queen of personal attacks.  😅

[Rockets]

As I was saying Ex- don't go all Mr Chicken (as Mr Chicken just went)....what a fantastic advert he is for the active travel lobby...."we are coming for your car etc"...in one post he highlights everything wrong with many in the active travel lobby and why people are, rightly, questioning how things have been allowed to get this far. From Anna Goodman tearing down posters to some of the overly angry posts on here it's clear the active travel lobby have some real problem elements who won't ever be able to have a balanced discussion...its very much their way of the highway...sorry I mean cycleway...;-)

3 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

@Rockets you just got strong respect there from the Queen of personal attacks.  😅

Indeed I am honoured, my work here is now done! 😉

[mr.chicken]

Huh the pro pollution swarm is active this morning!

Speaking of problem elements:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/16/fixing-vandalised-ltn-infrastructure-costs-london-councils-more-than-850000

Looks like the pro pollution lobby is causing a lot of expensive damage!

It is our way or the cycle super highway (we did win the election by a wide and increased majority), but at least you'll be able to travel that highway safely and without breathing too much cancerous pollution. Which is after all our goal.

 

 

 

 

 

[Rockets]

A swarm...how nice....

"We did win"...are you a Councillor? I know Southwark have had problems with councillors haranguing constituents by setting up anonymous social media accounts before (Cllr Pollack) so maybe you're another! 😉

 

Funny you posted the article from the Guardian as I saw some social threads saying how come the councils spend so much on repairing vandalised LTN infrastructure when other vandalised infrastructure (like in parks) stands unrepaired for years. Someone mentioned that the council are only spending money made by the LTNs to repair/update/refresh them with that money. 

 

Also love the Guardian submitted an FOI to get that info.....

 

 

Edited August 20, 2023 by Rockets

[mr.chicken]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

"We did win"...are you a Councillor

Nope, just part of the all powerful cycle lobby mafia illuminati. Not actually owning a working bike or doing any lobbying is no impediment to being a member it turns out. You don't even have to wear Lycra.

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

Funny you posted the article from the Guardian as I saw some social threads saying how come the councils spend so much on repairing vandalised LTN infrastructure when other vandalised infrastructure (like in parks) stands unrepaired for years.

aah whataboutery at its best. You can't even bring yourself to criticise vandalism. Your instinct now I'm sure is to find something I didn't criticise in the past, as if that somehow justifies your somewhat neutral-to-pro vandalism stance.

It is sad of course when park infrastructure is vandalised, but vandalised LTN infrastructure results in drivers doing dangerous things such as driving through areas which other people expect to not have cars in, making it a safety issue that the council really does need to fix quickly.

 

 

 

 

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, mr.chicken said:

Nope, just part of the all powerful cycle lobby mafia illuminati. Not actually owning a working bike or doing any lobbying is no impediment to being a member it turns out. You don't even have to wear Lycra.

aah whataboutery at its best. You can't even bring yourself to criticise vandalism. Your instinct now I'm sure is to find something I didn't criticise in the past, as if that somehow justifies your somewhat neutral-to-pro vandalism stance.

It is sad of course when park infrastructure is vandalised, but vandalised LTN infrastructure results in drivers doing dangerous things such as driving through areas which other people expect to not have cars in, making it a safety issue that the council really does need to fix quickly.

 

 

 

 

I don't need to because anyone, who has been paying attention over the last few years, would know that I have criticised the vandals, on both sides of the argument, plenty in the past.

 

Not going to try to find something you haven't criticised because I feel no need to stoop to your level. And, to be honest, you seem to spend your whole time on here aggresively attacking anyone who dares to oppose your view of the world, so finding something that you don't criticise is probably going to be a bit of an effort - but maybe that's part of the modus operandi for a self-confessed (bikeless) member of the all powerful cycle lobby mafia illuminati. 😉

[first mate]

Just getting back to CPZ. I notice on page 8 of the SL manifesto 2022, under the main heading "Our Guarantee to you" they say they will empower communities to shape the areas they live in and to to make decisions about things that affect our lives. Then in bold they will  "place residents at the heart of everything we do"

Unless the council have added mass mind reading to their skillset then this is clearly a pack of lies where CPZ is concerned.

 

Edited August 20, 2023 by first mate

[mr.chicken]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

 would know that I have criticised the vandals, on both sides of the argument, plenty in the past.

Sure you have, Rocks. I'll chalk this one up to "Rockets will not unilaterally criticise the vandals". You can prove me wrong and criticise them alone without attempting to take a dig at anyone else to soften the blow. But we both know you won't.

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

And, to be honest, you seem to spend your whole time on here aggresively attacking anyone who dares to oppose your view of the world

I find people who lack evidence or understanding, often feel that such things are a personal attack. Doubly so when people with reason on their side refuse to back down. Oh well, I can't help your feelings.

 

 

[Charles Martel]

On 19/08/2023 at 21:24, DesignThinking said:

 

 

There seems to be a concerted effort to spread the lie 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. Residents pay for the administration of the zone through their permits.

Edited August 20, 2023 by Charles Martel

[Spartacus]

An interesting point Charles, so technically the council are breaking that rule by applying different fees for different vehicle types as a permit costs the same to produce and administrate regardless of vehicle size! One they could face challenges over if taken to judicial review. 

Also you forget that fines for parking in a CPZ aren't covered by the rule so revenue can legitimately be raised that way which can reduce the amount the council needs to add additionally to the Road maintenance fund and that reduction can be redirected elsewhere in the council budget. 

I believe that the council use a CPZ as an exercise in creative accountancy. 

[exdulwicher]

3 hours ago, Spartacus said:

An interesting point Charles, so technically the council are breaking that rule by applying different fees for different vehicle types as a permit costs the same to produce and administrate regardless of vehicle size! One they could face challenges over if taken to judicial review. 

Nope - tiered fees/charges are standard in lots of areas - council tax, income tax, vehicle excise duty, toll roads. Nothing wrong with it at all. Paris have a similar scheme where parking a 4x4 costs a fortune but parking a small city runabout costs very little. I think theirs is done on vehicle weight.

None of this is new - CPZ have been in use for decades. The original intention was that you could control parking within a small area (sort of "several streets" type size) without having to mark out loads of parking bays, erect loads of signage and so on, you simply have one zone where signs at the boundary say what the parking rules are for that zone. 

However it does work well to begin to use (eg) tiered charges to encourage use of smaller/more efficient cars or to gradually reduce the number of permits over the years without going back and re-painting parking bays. Lambeth outlined it well in their kerbside strategy that got widely publicised last year; their intention is to gradually reduce the number of permits issued and convert what used to be kerbside parking into rainwater gardens, parklets, bike hanger spaces and so on.

Edited August 21, 2023 by exdulwicher

[Spartacus]

Ex, you aren't getting the issue, if the CPZ fee should cover only administering the scheme then tiered charges are technically a breech. 

Whilst they are employed elsewhere legally (tax ...) , to the letter of the CPZ rule charging more for "a more polluting vehicle" is  variation of charge and not related to administering the scheme as Charles claims it can only be used for above. 

You / the council can't have it both ways ! 

Or are you saying that the council can create revenue from a CPZ ? 

[exdulwicher]

30 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Or are you saying that the council can create revenue from a CPZ ? 

It's not (usually) the primary aim of a CPZ but firstly, they have to generate revenue because Government guidance says that council parking controls must be self financing:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions

But secondly, they can also be used for behaviour change, encouraging less polluting / smaller vehicles via tiered charges and so on. 

Also, it's right there in the manifesto about smaller cars being charged less.

Edited August 21, 2023 by exdulwicher

[Spartacus]

So ex, are you saying what Charles quoted above is incorrect as a council can raise extra revenue from a CPZ ? 

[mr.chicken]

34 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Ex, you aren't getting the issue, if the CPZ fee should cover only administering the scheme then tiered charges are technically a breech.

That's begging the question: should the CPZ fees only cover administration?

The CPZ is required by law (if I understand correctly) to be self financing, so the cost must cover administration. But there's nothing that says the only cost must be administration.

The only purpose of the CPZ is not the revenue (that's a requirement) just the benefit it brings. Charging more for vehicles that take more space, cause more pollution, more road damage and are more dangerous to pedestrians (requiring better, more expensive infrastructure) seems entirely proportionate.

 

[Spartacus]

See my response to EX above concerning the statement from Charles. 

Obviously they were muddying the waters to say a CPZ can only cover administration costs.

But the response from you and Ex does explain why people see it as  tax for parking as it can be used to generate revenue for the council as well as control parking. 🤔 

[exdulwicher]

8 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

See my response to EX above concerning the statement from Charles. 

Obviously they were muddying the waters to say a CPZ can only cover administration costs.

But the response from you and Ex does explain why people see it as  tax for parking as it can be used to generate revenue for the council as well as control parking. 🤔 

Parking charges already raise revenue, they have done for decades. There's always an excess (at least, there is if the council have calculated it correctly because the system has to be self-financing so you run into problems if your system costs are X and your planned revenue for the year is also X because any shortfall means you're no longer self-financing).

But the excess has to be reinvested into streets and transport so it's a very good and easy way of making up the shortfall (from austerity) in things like fixing potholes, street cleaning, council-run bus services (the little Dial-A-Ride minibus things for disabled residents for example). 

[Charles Martel]

On 21/08/2023 at 07:55, Spartacus said:

An interesting point Charles, so technically the council are breaking that rule by applying different fees for different vehicle types as a permit costs the same to produce and administrate regardless of vehicle size! One they could face challenges over if taken to judicial review. 

[...]

I believe that the council use a CPZ as an exercise in creative accountancy. 

My response was to several comments above to the effect 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.  That is not what the law says. 

The law concerning the basis for and limit of a local authority’s power to impose CPZs is clearly stated:
1. A local authority’s power to impose CPZs derives from Section 45 of the Road Traffic
Regulation Act 1984 (“the Act”). This permits a local authority to impose a CPZ only for
the limited purposes specified in Subsection 45(3), namely having regard to:
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 off-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 the Section.

2. Under Section 55(1) of the Act, the local authority must keep a separate account of their
income and expenditure in relation to parking spaces. As to which:
a. If there is a surplus, the local authority can spend that surplus for the purposes
specified in Subsection 55(4).
b. However, the Act is not a fiscal measure, and it is therefore unlawful for the local
authority “to introduce charging and charging levels for the purpose, primary or
secondary of raising money”: per Lang J in R (Attfield) v Barnet LBC [2013] RTR
33 at [56], quoting from the judgment of Pitchford LJ in Djanogly v Westminster
City Council [2011] R.T.R. 9 at [12].
c. Furthermore, for the same reason it is not permissible for the local authority
deliberately to budget to achieve a surplus from its parking income, apart from a
modest surplus to ensure the provision of parking spaces is self-financing and a
modest amount to allow for unforeseen shortfalls etc.: per Lang J in R (Attfield) v
Barnet LBC [2013] RTR 33 at [63], referring to and adopting the reasoning of
Pitchford LJ in Djanogly v Westminster City Council [2011] R.T.R. 9.

The above is taken from https://opposethecpz.org/2023/07/27/southwark-wide-petition/

Now I’m no big city lawyer, so I will leave it to the judicial review to decide if Southwark council’s proposed borough wide CPZ is lawful.  However it should be clear 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.

It should also be clear that councillor McAsh was mistaken when he said  “It cannot be that residents of Camberwell and Bermondsey have to pay for [parking] and people in Dulwich Village and Nunhead get that for free.” He commented that this would ultimately be “unfair and unjust.” In actuality residents in Camberwell and Bermondsey have parking problems which necessitate a CPZ to allow them access to their premises. They do not “pay for parking.”  Their parking permits pay for the administration of the CPZ which is of direct benefit to them.

[legalalien]

Yes, this. I’m still struggling to see how the aims of encouraging behaviour change/ reducing car usage/ encouraging active travel fit within the statutory purpose of section 45 of the Act. Statutory powers are supposed to be exercised only for the purposes for which they are conferred, no?  If the council designate parking spaces with the primary intention of addressing a traffic/ access problem, and this has the incidental effect of reducing traffic, that’s one thing, but the policy announcements about a borough wide CPZ and the reasons for it don’t seem consistent with section 45, even though the individual decision papers will doubtless now be carefully worded (as the council must now be well aware of the issue).

[hellose5]

On one of the bike hangar spaces  (we have four hardly used in our road as not safe, dirty and people with expensive bikes take them indoors or into their gardens) Southwark Council inadvertently sent us paperwork which declared the space was worth 1million in terms of cash.  Another neighbour told us that Councils do not need to consult which is why they just carry on.  Legalalien - maybe you might be able to research this by your moniker? Is this true? Can this be changed through Ombudsmen?  Ealing Council's fight to say that actually ambulances and fire need access - helped - go to one of the fora for Ealing - Lib Dem I think to see a sound, cogent, article. We need balance on the road, clogging them up causes more polution not less (especially round schools  - but Council does not want to be sued).  Lithium is fire hazard, Chinese-led, enslaved children etc etc, no lasting power.  So EV short-term measure and is not the way. Maybe gas-powered cars are?  R4 might be good to contact, LBC etc. 

[mr.chicken]

35 minutes ago, hellose5 said:

Lithium is fire hazard

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.

 

 

 

Edited August 23, 2023 by mr.chicken

[first mate]

If we have more electric cars and other battery powered vehicles they may become less rare. Aren't they meant to be even more dangerous than petrol sources, if they do catch fire.