Dulwich Village area-wide CPZ consultation is back!

[CPR Dave]

Maybe it's time the council started charging these people rent for each of the carparking spaces taken uo by their dropped curbs at the premium rate their supercars justify. 

Why should those multimillionaire get to drive over our pavements and park for free while forcing all the peasants to pay for parking on the road? 

[Kathleen Olander]

27 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Do we know that these are requests from residents? If I remember rightly anyone can leave feedback on the interactive map they have used to collate some of that "evidence" - you don't have to be a resident of said street to leave feedback - would be interesting to know how many of them are from local residents as the way they position it in the document it doesn't suggest it is resident feedback: The green dots on the map below indicate where we have received requests for parking restrictions:

 

Bottom-line is much of what the council are presenting as "evidence" is not something people in the area recognise as a problem and I very much hope that people mobilise against the council and say a firm no to the proposals and the council understands the weight of feeling against them - this has nothing to do with active travel or climate change and everything to do with revenue generation - a new tax for those that rely on cars.

Clearly Calton Ave and Gilkes Crescent residents do think it's a problem judging by the amount of yellow dots on the map. whether interactive or not.  Given the chance of course they want to empty their streets of cars, just like Court Lane did.  Remember they mostly have big drives so they won't have to fork out for permits for their cars or visitors cars and all the parking will be displaced elsewhere.

[CPR Dave]

It's also pretty disgraceful that you can't complete the survey at all unless you agree to the council harvesting your data. There is no option to opt of data collection if you want to proceed with the survey 

I'm not sure how they square that with GDPR??

[Rockets]

But I dont think you need to be a resident to create a green dot. If this is based on the OHS map (or whatever it was called) anyone could place a dot with a request/comment on something to do with any road they chose. LCC used to encourage people to make comments in an attempt to sway council decisions whether they were a resident in the area or not. I bet you the council doesn't know/won't share where the people who posted the comments are from. It's a page from the active travel lobby playbook (that councils are more than aware of) of influencing local matters.

[Nigello]

On 12/12/2023 at 19:43, Kathleen Olander said:

Clearly Calton Ave and Gilkes Crescent residents do think it's a problem judging by the amount of yellow dots on the map. whether interactive or not.  Given the chance of course they want to empty their streets of cars, just like Court Lane did.  Remember they mostly have big drives so they won't have to fork out for permits for their cars or visitors cars and all the parking will be displaced elsewhere.

Indeed - Court Lane was never busy and is still wide with decent-width footpaths and large front gardens leading to often double glazed houses. It ought to be reopened to through traffic because those who live there already have three-ply protection against noise and pollution. 

[malumbu]

I used Court Lane as a daily commute for many years.  During rush hour/school run there was always a tail back 

Kathleen - can we really tell people where to send their kids to school, be it private or state.  Schools can, and often do, have measures to reduce environmental impact of journeys to school.

[Rockets]

Walked down Court Lane today and certainly saw no signs of the parking pressure the council is oh so keen to try and convince themselves and us exists - huge swathes of empty parking spaces. In fact the only time i see any parking pressure is during the weekends and that is on a small section either side of the park as parents vie for a space that doesn't require their budding sporting star to walk too far after their match!

[first mate]

8 hours ago, malumbu said:

I used Court Lane as a daily commute for many years.  During rush hour/school run there was always a tail back 

Kathleen - can we really tell people where to send their kids to school, be it private or state.  Schools can, and often do, have measures to reduce environmental impact of journeys to school.

So all that daily school drop off traffic will have gone onto local boundary roads won't it? All those parents ferrying kids across or from out and into the borough will not have suddenly got their kids cycling in, will they? That traffic you talk about on your old daily commute won't just have evaporated.

Maybe they now put their child on a coach (able to park in DV for free) or they get dropped off on a boundary road. Either way, I am pretty darn sure those children are not walking or cycling, especially not in this weather.

You seem comfortable that local residents bear the burden of the children of the wealthy ( many from out of borough) by giving them access to park for free in space everyone else has to pay for? Seems it should be the other way round to me.

 

 

[Kathleen Olander]

16 hours ago, malumbu said:

I used Court Lane as a daily commute for many years.  During rush hour/school run there was always a tail back 

Kathleen - can we really tell people where to send their kids to school, be it private or state.  Schools can, and often do, have measures to reduce environmental impact of journeys to school.

I imagine Nigello is talking about parked cars on Court Lane not ones on the road!  This thread is about the consultation for CPZ in Dulwich Village.

No, wealthy people can send  their kids to any school they like.  State schools only accept kids in their immediate area. 

The problem I have is that 1,350 children are being coached in and out everday in term time, and most, if not all, do not live in the Borough of Southwark and therefore their parents do not contribute one penny or have any interest whatsoever in Southwark.  

In the meantime the schools facilities are expanding at such a rate that Alleyns and JAGS have built all over their car parks and so their staff and visitors, who also mostly don't live in Southwark, all park on surrounding roads i.e. Calton Ave.

The coaches then cause congestion by leaving engines running in winter and air conditioning in summer, which Southwark Council never seem to tackle.  Each day the coaches arrive back around 1 p.m. taking up a huge number of parking spaces and as far as I know again don't pay a penny to Southwark.

As a result, Southwark residents have no places to park and Southwark Council want to put in a CPZ to charge them on top of their Council Tax.  

 

 

[CPR Dave]

This CPZ isn't just Dulwich Village though. It comes right into our area.

It extends all the way to the east side of Lordship Lane all the way down to Townley Road. It's a huge area and it will impact all of East Dulwich very badly which I have no doubt whatsoever is the main intention.

They are going to do whatever it takes to make us beg for a CPZ here and won't stop until we do.

[Kathleen Olander]

22 minutes ago, CPR Dave said:

This CPZ isn't just Dulwich Village though. It comes right into our area.

It extends all the way to the east side of Lordship Lane all the way down to Townley Road. It's a huge area and it will impact all of East Dulwich very badly which I have no doubt whatsoever is the main intention.

They are going to do whatever it takes to make us beg for a CPZ here and won't stop until we do.

Yes that's right, it affects all Southwark Residents, the effects of CPZ's are not contained in one small area.  They are trying to get a CPZ IN Nunhead and other lpaces too.

[first mate]

Kathleen Olander, spot on. Come hell or high water this council are intent on imposing CPZ on an area that does not want or need it. How the Cabinet Member responsible aligns this with a democratic process is beyond me. It is all about money.

Just to make the point, were this council as green as they try to make out, they would not countenance turning a large part of our local park into an events space for hire, chopping down trees to facilitate contractors.

[Spartacus]

On 13/12/2023 at 22:08, malumbu said:

I used Court Lane as a daily commute for many years.  During rush hour/school run there was always a tail back 

Obviously not using it now eh Mal 🙄 , is that because you are not a local resident ? 🤔 

[malumbu]

Changed my commute a few years ago, Underhill Road, Peckham, Canal path, Old Kent Road, Elephant.  Use Court Lane when going to Camberwell, Vauxhall and the like.  Always happy to chat more, but don't think this thread is about commuting routes 

[Rockets]

Is anyone going to the CPZ meeting at the Library tonight?

[first mate]

If anyone did, please let us know what happened.

[malumbu]

I see that Paris are going in much harder on motorists and may up the parking costs for vehicles over 1.6 tonnes.  This is particularly aimed at large SUVs.  I thought that 1.6 tonnes may catch the utilitarian family estate, but from some quick research most will be under this weight.

One Dulwich, concerned that Southwark will copy this good idea, have already started a campaign.  As have motorists in Sidcup where there has been a run on gilet jaunes.

That was a joke.  I am smiling to myself

Here is the link: www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/08/paris-mayor-plans-to-triple-suv-parking-tariffs-cut-air-pollution   So count yourself fortunate that you are not in Paris. Measures have already included:

increasing parking costs and gradually banning diesel vehicles, while expanding the bicycle lane network in the congested capital. The city has reduced the number of on-street parking spaces in order to make drivers use underground parking

Edited December 17, 2023 by malumbu

[Charles Martel]

On 09/12/2023 at 17:53, malumbu said:

For the sake of balance, and the need to reduce emissions, is there a link to a site that supports restrictions on vehicles?  Have you got any alternative proposals Charles?  What about OpposeCPZ, do they have any good ideas or are they single issue who couldn't give a fig about health and the environment which is my experience of those that most vocally oppose anything that restricts their motoring.

We have just been through all these arguments with the recent borough wide CPZ proposal.  If you wish to believe these CPZ proposals are about health and the environment you are entitled to do so.  However you must then acknowledge that neither of these are factors, under the relevant legislation, would allow the council to simply impose a CPZ.  You may wish that the law gave you the right to impose an anti-car cultural revolution onto the rest of us, but the law does not.  Southwark council clearly wishes that the law gave them the right to raise revenue from a CPZ, but the law does not give them that right.  This simple, straightforward analysis of the law formed the basis of the recent successful opposition to the borough wide CPZ.

The latest update from opposethecpz.org covers the arguments being made against the current Dulwich Village proposals.
https://opposethecpz.org/2023/12/16/twtw-15-december-2023/

This summer we had a series of kafkaesque performances by councillor McAsh in which he repeatedly contradicted the law by denying the need for any consultations and insisting that a CPZ could be used to raise the revenue to fund his Streets for People project.
https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/southwark-council-has-dug-itself-a-cpz-shaped-hole/

Now here we are back again with the same proposals for Dulwich village as before, but dressed up with a consultation.  The council has clearly reverted to the same tactic as was used in 2019 to suggest that, shock horror, a few commuters parking next to East Dulwich station justified the whole of East Dulwich being covered by a CPZ.  Now it is shock horror cars are parked on Woodwarde Road, etc.  Of course there are cars are parked on Woodwarde Road.  It is a quiet residential road where families live.  The same is true of the majority of the roads in the proposed CPZ area.  Families park  their family cars outside their family homes.  If 80% of households living on a road own a car and park it outside their home then obviously 80% of the parking will be occupied.  Pretending this is “parking stress” is nonsense.  Unless an attempt is made to distinguish the ownership of parked cars between residents and non-residents how can a CPZ be proposed as a solution? 

If we look at the recent Old Kent Road CPZ decision we can see what is likely to happen.  Note the invention of terms like “kerbside space” which is completely outside the scope of the relevant legislation.  They also use “future residents” of as yet unbuilt housing developments “ within walking distance” as a reason to extort CPZ fees from existing residents.
https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s107370/Report.pdf

“14.Although the majority of respondents were not in support of the CPZ, officers recommend that the scheme is implemented for the following reasons:
a) The Council must prioritise kerbside space. Approximately 72% of trips starting in Southwark are by walking, cycling and public transport, with only 25% by driving. Providing space for those commuting into or around the borough with private cars is not a recognised priority.
b) The majority of households within the borough (58%) do not own a car (Borough Factsheet, 2017) so creating space for public realm
improvements that benefit residents and people walking and cycling is a priority. 
c) According to Census data in the area, 25.76% of residents take the bus to work, 8.38% drive to work and 7.70% take underground, metro or light rail. Prioritising space for motor vehicles does not benefit most residents in the area.
d) There are several sites within walking distance from this area, which are to be developed into residential housing without car parking. Future residents of these developments will not be permitted to purchase onstreet parking permits. However, this can only be achieved if a CPZ is in place, which means that a CPZ is essential. This would protect the available kerb space for current residents, businesses and their visitors.”

None of these reasons relate to the local residents at all.  They and their concerns were deemed to be irrelevant and so were just ignored.  The decision only references Southwark council’s own diktats.  Nonsensical, made up terms like “kerbside space” mean that a CPZ could be imposed anywhere with the same irrational rationale.

It seems that Southwark council has simply become an administrative bureaucracy determined to find income for itself.  These CPZ proposals, and the others which will surely follow for surrounding areas, like East Dulwich ward, are driven by a sense of rentier entitlement to raise revenue from road users.  However the law does not allow this and so these proposals will continue to be opposed on that basis.

Anyone who thinks that Southwark council are acting in good faith with their “Streets for People” green washing should consider the recent case of Bessemer Primary School which has a school street protected morning and afternoon by removable bollards.  Southwark council recently proposed removing the physical protection offered by the bollards and installing an ANPR camera instead.   There was no consultation of the school, local residents or parents before this council diktat was made.  Obviously the only way this made any sense was that the council were putting the potential income from an ANPR camera above children’s safety outside the school.  Bessemer Primary School then had to start a petition campaign which fortunately received enough coverage to get the council to back down once their money making scheme was subjected to public scrutiny.

https://www.change.org/p/save-our-school-street-bessemer-primary-school

https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/dulwich/bollard-removal-at-primary-school-in-dulwich-is-going-to-make-street-dangerous-say-parents/

This proves, as if any more proof were needed, that public resistance is required to stop Southwark council’s attempts to squeeze as much revenue as possible out of residents.

[tiddles]

Tbh after the last Cpz fiasco I do not believe the council when they say the residents of Gilkes and Carlton want a CPZ. That’s what they said about the Dulwich hill cpz quoting consultations back in 2019 which no residents were aware of. I suspect that they have spaffed away millions of public money on a traffic warden contract that is no longer needed so they are trying to create areas for them to patrol/raise revenue. I wonder how much money all the new ‘improvements ‘ to Dulwich Village will cost? They have already spent a fortune to create massive congestion outside a primary and infant school. 

Edited December 18, 2023 by tiddles
Typo

[malumbu]

So you don't have any proposals to reduce emissions Charles. Why not? Do you support the status quo?  From your post it could be inferred that you don't believe that vehicle emissions harm health or affect the environment.

Here's a simple question, if you charge somebody more to park their car if it is an conventional vehicle rather than electric would that not encourage some to switch?

If you charged more for a vehicle with higher carbon and air pollution emissions rather than one with lower, would that not encourage some to switch to a more health and environmentally vehicle.

If you feel that there is better ways of reducing emissions I'd love to hear.  I've been involved in this for ages and it has to be a carrot and a stick.  ,A simple win win win way is just getting people to drive smoother, reducing acceleration and braking, share journeys but they wont.  Lower fuel bills, more comfortable for you and your passengers, less collisions (and KSIs), less wear and tear.  Sadly poor driving is just ingrained and sadly encouraged by the vehicle manufacturers.  So changing driver behaviour in this respect is not going to work.

Edited December 18, 2023 by malumbu

[Rockets]

It is clear the council are desperately trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist. It is truly ludicrous how much tax-payers money they are wasting to try and create a platform to take more revenue from their constituents.

 

The only place that parking pressure and stress actually exists is in the mind of the council and our councillors. There is zero need for a CPZ in Dulwich Village.

Zero - and the council knows this.

[mrwb]

57 minutes ago, Rockets said:

It is clear the council are desperately trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist. It is truly ludicrous how much tax-payers money they are wasting to try and create a platform to take more revenue from their constituents.

 

The only place that parking pressure and stress actually exists is in the mind of the council and our councillors. There is zero need for a CPZ in Dulwich Village.

Zero - and the council knows this.

The problem is the council potentially running out of money, going "bankrupt" and having to file a section 114 notice. 

The solution is the CPZ... 

 

 

[tiddles]

If they are that broke,why keep spending loads of money on endless ‘twiddles’ of the toads and pavements 

[Rockets]

They can only spend money they earn from fines and CPZs on road and street infrastructure so, currently, they cannot use it to pay for anything outside of those areas. But I do wonder whether they think a new Labour government may relax those rules given so many councils are going bankrupt and are trying to plant the seeds to create revenue streams for the future.

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, mrwb said:

The solution is the CPZ.

Not a legal solution...