Weird anonymous "war on motorists" leaflets on Burbage Rd

[Spartacus]

As has been pointed out before 

CPZs don't impact pollution, they just charge you to have your car in the street suppossedly to "alleviate local parking pressures" but they don't stop people driving and may make traffic worse as people then drive to out of town shopping areas where they can park rather than shorter local trips to pick up goods because thete us no local parking. 

LTNs may reduce traffic in some roads but the expected evaporation hasn't occurred thus adding traffic, delays and pressure to surrounding roads which also increases pollution.

There needs to be more joined up and clever thinking, including better public transport and links between public transport rather than tinkering and making things worse.

 

[Rockets]

<Removed personal jibe - please see orange notice at the top of this board>

Climate change is happening and it is being caused by human behaviour and one of the biggest problems right now is people aren't prepared to make the sacrifices required. People are happy to sit and rant on and on about the damage humans are doing to the planet yet don't actually look at their own actions - we all trim things around the edges but are many actually doing everything they can to afford change and even if they do are those changes significant enough to have an impact? There is a worrying selfishness coming over people post-Covid that I really did not think would be the lasting legacy of the crisis and I am starting to very much subscribe to the mantra that those who shout loudest have the most to hide - as I see it time and time again from people in the area - a sort of climate change hypocrisy, people trying to convince themselves that they are doing their bit when they are very much part of the problem rather than the solution.

Things are not helped by those who try to sell things like LTNs and CPZs on the basis that somehow their implementation is going to help climate change - it is utter codswallop and complete greenwashing and the council know this and are jumping on the bandwagon trying to dupe people that their plans are for the greater good - and they often find a willing audience like Clean Air Dulwich et al who will do their bidding for them.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the CPZ feedback will be the catalyst for the council to be a little bit more transparent and do their best to unite the community rather than divide it but, to be fair, I said that after the LTN fiasco and this council leopard has not changed its spots and seems, like most politicians nowadays, to go looking for rifts to widen rather than narrow.....

Edited January 17 by Administrator
Removed personal jibe

[Administrator]

I have removed some comments which were getting personal and not relevant to the wider topic being discussed here.

Please be mindful of the rules in the orange notice notice at the top of this board, especially this one:

Quote

 

A personal jibe is when you reference the name of another forum member directly in a post and make a comment about their views, attitude, or anything else.

 

Debates around this topic area can be made without making things personal.

[jazzer]

Catalyst - very good and organic

[Rockets]

It is going to be very interesting to see what the results of the consultation are on the CPZs in particular and what the council do next if the results go against them...I very much suspect they will proceed with it anyway as they were starting to allude to them having the final say (whatever the result) when Cllr McAsh gave his update.

[Glemham]

At the Council meeting yesterday Councillor McAsh agreed to a request from a deputation of concerned Dulwich residents to extend the final date for the consultation to Sunday 28 January.

[Rockets]

That is interesting as, of course, the council extended the deadline for one LTN consultation so it could send Labour canvassers door-to-door to drum up support for their measures.

 

Someone, not from the council, has been going door-to-door on the affected streets asking people for their views on the CPZ, whether they think there is parking pressure etc etc.

 

Glemham, were you at the meeting - if so was there anything of interest to report?

[malumbu]

Oh no not another LTN thread.....

[first mate]

4 hours ago, Rockets said:

That is interesting as, of course, the council extended the deadline for one LTN consultation so it could send Labour canvassers door-to-door to drum up support for their measures.

 

Someone, not from the council, has been going door-to-door on the affected streets asking people for their views on the CPZ, whether they think there is parking pressure etc etc.

 

Glemham, were you at the meeting - if so was there anything of interest to report?

Would also be interested to hear more from Glemham about the meeting.

[Glemham]

At the Council meeting yesterday Councillor McAsh agreed to a request from a deputation of concerned Dulwich residents to extend the final date for the consultation to Sunday 28 January.

I wasn’t at the meeting but it is available on YouTube if you search Southwark Cabinet meeting January 17 2024. It’s about 20 mins in.

[first mate]

Just watched the meeting. To paraphrase Cllr McCash : 

We at Southwark are delighted to have consulted with you the residents ( not least because to be able to push through CPZ we have to tick that legal box)  but, any shortcomings in the consultation process to date are absolutely not Southwark Council's fault. In fact, you the residents are at fault for spreading the word and turning up to the meeting in far greater numbers than we had hoped. Nonetheless, we will extend the consultation period because, at the end of the day, it is only a consultation not a vote. Rest assured, we are listening to you we really are and well done to you all for telling us what you think, but if we decide you should have CPZ anyway then you'll just have to suck it up!

[Rockets]

Ha ha…Cllr McAsh seemed to be squirming a bit….here is the link…20 mins in

 

 

- interesting that the meeting on the 10th at the library about 100 people turned up but were told it was 1:1 format and people had to register. Certainly when I saw the invite to the event there was no mention of 1:1 format or the need to register a second time. Cllr McAsh’s explanation is bumbling to say the least and he doesn’t sound too convinced of what he is relaying to the deputation group. It seemed to me it was a community meeting not this “drop-in 1:1” format that the council now seems to prefer….are they trying to divide and conquer, they really seem to hate having to address an audience of constituents….?

- also interesting to hear that an FOI showed there had been no requests for CPZs on some of the roads that, on the council materials, had shown requests had been made. Another oversight per chance…..?

 

- Cllr McAsh admitted there were problems with deliveries of the consultation leaflets and that there could have been issues with the company they use with the addresses…..this is rather odd because if you say hand-deliver to every house on Eynella Road how difficult is it….? The fact they are going to re-issue the documents is very interesting but they will have to get a crack on….and he seemed to indicate they will be posted rather than hand-delivered so expect to receive them one week after the consultation closes at yet more expense to the tax-payer! 😉

 

- his mention during the drop-in discussion about the active community in Dulwich Village makes me suggest they have a fight on their hands and maybe this isn’t going to be plain sailing for them….but also the fact that the council has, again, messed up communication. His closing comments on that part are incredible….that somehow because the local community had to rely on word of mouth to communicate about the meetings and more people turned up than the council was expecting, because people hadn’t received the council’s documentation, is a poor reflection on the council’s communication skills.

 His reminder that it is a consultation not a vote is a clear indication that the council is likely to ignore the views of residents and push forward with the CPZ regardless of the outcome.

 

Oh my, we have seen so much of this type of behaviour before from the council - how many more times can they pull these tricks….?

Edited January 21 by Rockets

[Spartacus]

How many times have the council been told "No" by residents to a CPZ in and around East Dulwich and yet they still keep on coming back. Begs a question  of what their real motive is? 

(To my memory it's three times so far but I could be wrong) 

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

Begs a question  of what their real motive is? 

Money, more particularly a revenue stream not capped by central government. Oh, and they don't approve of private ownership of cars. So 'hitting' car owners and users for money is morally OK for them. 

[malumbu]

Can you not keep your whinges to the appropriate threads?  This one's about complaining about entitled motorists, and the campaign against them

[Spartacus]

Mal, this one started as a complaint about a so called weird flyer warning people about a consultation, you seem to have tried to turn it to be one about entitled motorists and no one is falling for your narrative so maybe you're the one posting in the wrong thread.

Could be thinking out of the box here, but with so many threads and comments against CPZs on here, maybe just maybe there is merit to listening to residents views snd concerns and not just trying to demonise them as entitled 🤔 

[Charles Martel]

From this story in Southwark news it would seem that the leaflets have had the desired effect.  It is quite clear that not all residents were informed of the proposal by the council. Now they have been, the consultation has been extended and hopefully they will be able to have their say.

https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/dulwich/council-to-send-out-8000-cpz-letters-to-dulwich-village-after-houses-were-missed/

It is not a war against motorists, but it is a concerted attempt to extort money from them under the most obvious of false pretences. Last year it was because of fairness.  Dulwich Village had to have a CPZ because everywhere else in the borough was getting one. Whether they liked it or not.  Completely outside the law, of course, but they expected nobody to notice that. How wrong they were.  Now we are back with the same proposal as before, but because of made up nonsense about “parking stress” and the Alleyn’s school run.  It is so obviously bogus it is no wonder the council is less than keen for people to be informed about these plans.

[Rockets]

Has anyone actually received the new leaflet - we certainly haven't (but we did get the first one)?

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

On 22/01/2024 at 13:24, Spartacus said:

with so many threads and comments against CPZs on here, 

Give over. The number of threads and comments against CPZs on here has zero relation to real life. Active posters on this forum are a tiny and unrepresentative sliver of Dulwich residents.

[Spartacus]

19 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

Give over. The number of threads and comments against CPZs on here has zero relation to real life. Active posters on this forum are a tiny and unrepresentative sliver of Dulwich residents.

Yet even you can't deny the passion and anger that the councils attempt is bringing out. 

With over 100 people at the drop in session, most by the sounds of it against the plans, this forum does represent the views of locals and you and mal are swimming against the tide of opinion 😅

Mal already joined the dark side in one of his posts, don't fight it may the CPZ farce be with you 

[Charles Martel]

12 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

Give over. The number of threads and comments against CPZs on here has zero relation to real life. Active posters on this forum are a tiny and unrepresentative sliver of Dulwich residents.

This is clearly nonsense.  You are ignoring the fact that Southwark council recently withdrew their borough wide CPZ plans due entirely to public opposition.  Opposition that was based on exactly the same points as are regularly made on this forum.  On that basis it should be clear that the people making these points on this forum are far more representative of the general population of Dulwich than councillor McAsh or any of the hysterical anti-car activists posting here.  
https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/peckham/southwark-council-scraps-plans-for-cpz-covering-the-entire-the-borough/

In fact your comment highlights the complete lack of any attempt to build a base of support for the cpz policy “in real life”.  There has not been a single rational argument put forward as to why ordinary people in our area should support the idea of blanket cpz coverage.  Instead we get councillor McAsh stating variations on the theme of “Local people have repeatedly told the council that they want us to improve air quality, address the climate emergency, and make our borough even greener and safer.”  And yet in every public meeting he has attended about the cpz policy local people have told him they do not want a blanket cpz. 

Perhaps if McAsh and pro-cpz campaigners went door to door in Dulwich Village they might learn just how unrepresentative their ideas are.

[malumbu]

Amusing/sad, we want cleaner air, we want to take action against climate change.  But are we prepared to pay for any of this?  NOOOOO

[Penguin68]

I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no evidence that CPZs contribute to clean air or any of the Green shibboleths. What CPZs do is to counter parking issues in areas where parking spaces are contested to the disadvantage of residents. The ultimate aim of Southwark is to drive out privately owned cars from Southwark (and grab loads of money on the way to that) but to pretend that CPZs are in any way green per se is rubbish. If anything they encourage additional car miles as people drive around looking for somewhere to park, or drive around whilst a passenger shops or whatever. 

[Rockets]

CPZs, and the ludicrous and delusional claims by some that this somehow benefits the fight against climate change, may be a step too far by the council. I think many local residents have had enough of them trying to steamroller plans in that only benefit the council. The consultation will be fascinating and, given Cllr McAsh's - "it's not a vote" comments (he is probably saying this safe in the knowledge that there is no council election for a few years) I think it is clear they know the results will likely go against them and they will find a way to bring them in regardless.

 

Oh and still no sign of the redelivered council CPZ leaflets......

Edited January 26 by Rockets

[malumbu]

Two years and you still say the same things.  Southwark is incompetent corrupt, money grabbing etc.  you have no practical alternatives to reducing road traffic and emissions.  My consultation would be do you want to reduce emissions (a) yes (b) no.  If (a) put up with our measures if (b) tough.

Saying that CPZs do not reduce emissions is ludicrous.  It will reduce car ownership.  Some may decide to walk, get the bus, cycle, get a lift, shop on line, use a zip car that may well be electric, or an UBER which in time will become increasingly electric.  Some may upgrade their car to a cleaner model due to cheaper CPZ cost.  Ditto with visitors,make it a bit more costly/inconvenient some will switch 

It's simply that many of you just don't believe it should cost you