CPZ going ahead but in much smaller area

[Rockets]

I had the letter attached dropped through the door this morning and the council are going ahead with a much smaller CPZ zone following the consultation where, the council says: "some residents actively wanted controlled parking in their roads but the majority did not".

 

Interesting that the council has not shared any detail from the consultation in the letter - usually they share the numbers and I think it will be worth looking at the responses for Calton and Townley to see if the CPZ has support on those roads (friends of ours on Calton suggested to us that they and their neighbours were against the measures).

 

Perhaps now we can see why the council steadfastly refused to add "yes/no" questions to previous consultations as it seems once they do people are able to have their voices heard.

 

Well done people of Dulwich - finally the council has had to listen to you (one wonders whether these results throw doubts on other consultations that were fudged by the council!

 

Edited March 8 by Rockets

[Kathleen Olander]

This will mean that all the teachers from Alleyns and JAGS will no longer be able to park on Carlton Ave, Townley, Gilkes etc.

They will still drive in each day and just end up parked on someone else's street instead.

 

 

[Spartacus]

CPZ expansion by stealth 

[Rockets]

Yes and that's why it will be interesting to see the details of how the consultation results played out - last time the council tried to force a CPZ on the area they could only do it in the roads where they had "support" for it from residents (and some of that was generous use of support to say the least). I am deeply suspicious by lack of detail on the consultation results shared with the missive that they were reducing the area of the CPZ.

 

Of course they have to get a CPZ in as that's the only way they can try to create parking pressure on neighbouring roads with the displacement caused by, for example, the teachers parking further away from the school - they also have to ensure they have places to patrol for that £12m contract they gave APCOA!!! 😉 

 

The council clearly have taken a hell of a spanking from residents over the CPZ issue  - amazing what happens when you are forced to run a fair and transparent consultation with a clear yes/no answer - perhaps we should all call for all of the previous consultations to be re-run and see how the council gets on with things like the DV junction/LTN consultation! They have just found out that their ability to cheat the system has come to an abrupt end.

 

Power to the people!!! 😉

[Charles Martel]

On 08/03/2024 at 19:46, Rockets said:

Yes and that's why it will be interesting to see the details of how the consultation results played out -

Details of the consultation results are here:

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s119444/Appendix A.pdf

[Rockets]

Hmmm....interesting. No wonder the council aren't posting the results to people as they have done in other consultations (where they have been "victorious" because this is humiliating for the council - how did they misread the room so badly?

 

Superb work by Dulwich residents to tell Southwark what they thought of the CPZ plans - the large number of responses (although is the 99% response rate claimed by the council correct) and the overwhelming "No" given by 75% of the respondents is a very strong message from residents, so strong that there is no way they can spin their way out of it.

It is amazing what happens when the council is forced to allow residents to respond "yes/no" to the plans and they must be really glad they snuck a load of consultations in before they had to add a definitive response question. I do think any consultation without a "yes/no" needs to be run again.

 

So only one road, Gilkes Crescent, out of 28 surveyed, said yes to a CPZ, every other street had a majority who said "no" (except Mitchel Place that had a 1 vote each way draw!!!).

 

That is so definitive. No fudging possible. Dulwich has spoken.

 

Now this is where it gets interesting because even the question about whether you want a CPZ if a neighbouring road gets it doesn't give the council the mandate to roll this out to Townley and Calton as both of them said no to that as well.

 

On a road-by-road basis, three roads: Burbage Road, Gilkes Crescent and Milo Road would want parking restrictions if they were implemented on a neighbouring road.

 

I do wonder whether residents may be able to get the whole scheme scrapped during the statutory consultation as, clearly, there is no majority support for this anywhere other than Gilkes Crescent and if the council only rolled this out on Gilkes they would have zero chance to create the displacement they are so desperate to create to try again in the future.

 

 

Edited March 11 by Rockets

[Rockets]

Looks like the council has another fight on their hands as they are being accused of manipulating the data from the consultations to say they have support in some of the CPZ zone areas. Clearly no support for them on any road in Dulwich bar Gilkes....that much is clear.

 

https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/peckham/council-trumpets-bespoke-reworking-of-cpz-scheme-yet-campaign-group-claims-data-is-skewed-and-vows-to-fight-on/

[march46]

It’s been said before, but worth reminding everyone that a consultation is not a referendum.
 

Cllr McAsh was clear to state that resident feedback would be one element considered when decision making -

“Resident feedback is one part of it but then looking at all the evidence that we’re gathering as well. That is all important.”

 

[Rockets]

Ha ha....funny how a consultation is not a referendum only when the result goes against the council!

 

It's a hilarious line parroted by the council and members of the council appreciation society when a consultation goes against them....

 

If the residents of a street say, conclusively, during a consultation, no thanks, what other evidence does the council have to support its ignoring of the result? All they have said in tne various communications on this is that: "there has been a consistent theme raised by residents through these consultations and other means, about inconsiderate parking and unsafe parking-related issues linked to local schools."

....but clearly these issues are not strong enough to persuade local residents of the affected streets to support the very measures the council offered to address the issue.

The big problem for the council is, that after years of abusing the consultation process, they are under pressure from a legal perspective to ensure they have resident support.

 

They clearly do not.

Edited March 14 by Rockets

[first mate]

Don't forget the infamous 'parking stalkers' of East Dulwich- the mythical creatures that allegedly intimidated residents while waiting to nab their parking spaces in the morning. They all simply disappeared once councillors got the CPZ they needed on the Charter School side of Melbourne Grove etc.. 

[aeroplane]

Bear in mind, and this is coming from a Peckham resident who opposed the CPZ in my area several years ago, due to my argument that "you won't make it cheap, then you'll suddenly increase it by 10% year on year, because moneygrubbers." (it, obviously, went ahead anyway)

Well, they increased annual fees by 80% this year, eight times my (low) expectation. An extra £100 (you'll see other threads in this forum of similarly surprised residents) for owning a car. 

Their reasons totally spurious... "carbon cutting", "net zero", etc. etc. as though parked cars emit carbon. Identikit reasons for why they wanted to introduce it in the first place. I even read some council tosh about 'making our pavements more green and pleasant'. 

But you see where this is going. I give it two years, tops, before they suddenly increase it another 50% --and that's a conservative estimate. They'll just keep bumping it up far higher than inflation can ever dream of reaching. It's such a wonderful cash cow! "Car owners--BOO!--are killing the planet, therefore we effectively need to criminalise them through massive fees (especially those mothers with 2 kids who need to do the weekly shop! Can't they simply take the woefullly infrequent and inadequate bus services with their 12kg of shopping and prams, even if it means missing 4 buses in order to actually find space, even during non-peak hours?)"

Set a reminder in your calendars. Another 50-80% before 2027. I guarantee it. Oppose CPZs at all costs, because if you don't, Southwark council are free to charge whatever they like, when they like, and you'll never be able to do anything about it. That'll be £500, please.

[malumbu]

It would be helpful to know how much you are paying and what kind of car.  If it is a large diesel then you may be paying more due to the relatively high emissions of pollutants and carbon dioxide.  As far as I understand CPZs incentivise cleaner vehicles, such as electric, or smaller more fuel efficient engines.  It's also worth considering the total cost of motoring, depreciation, servicing, insurance, MoT as well as fuel.  In this respect the cost of parking on the public highway may not seem that steep irrespective of the hefty increase.

Are you close to the stations and/or high street?  I expect most parts of the country will have restrictions on parking here.

Many just consider the cost of fuel rather than whole life costs.  At 50 pence plus a mile for private motoring, Zip car and/or Uber may make more sense.  And if you are confident on two wheels then a cargo bike can be great to do the weekly shop or those trendy people carrying bikes for getting the kids to school - pretty popular around here.

Anyway some food for thought.

Edited March 17 by malumbu

[first mate]

For now, in the very immediate future, electric vehicles are being incentivised but that is not to last. Cllrs Rose and McAsh have been very clear that electric cars are next on the hit list. 

[vladi]

14 minutes ago, first mate said:

For now, in the very immediate future, electric vehicles are being incentivised but that is not to last. 

That's for sure!

Any government has to protect the tax revenue stream. Hence as more people adopt EV's, the tax take on petrol and diesel consumption decreases. Similarly as fewer people smoke tobacco, the overall tax take deceases.  So they have to increase other taxes somehow.

The latest tax madness is to penalise has been subsidising heat pumps but these are inefficient, expensive and have a limited lifetime. They also produce lower temperatures necessitating replacement of all existing radiators with much larger ones.

It's all a big con based on bait  and switch.

[malumbu]

A totally different conversation which is worthy of different threads.  Taxation - government is keen to reduce NI and in turn income tax but needs to maintain revenue, in part this is the stealth tax if not raising income tax thresholds.  And as you say as we reduce general revenue as cigarette consumption reduces and less CO2 from vehicles how is this made up?  Certainly not through fuel duty as this has been frozen/reduced over the last twenty years.  A headache for Labour should they win the next election, how much will their manifesto address this.

 

A second thread can be on incentivising reduced domestic energy usage.  Really no point Torries in pushing heat pumps until we insulate our housing stock better 

Edited March 17 by malumbu

[first mate]

At Southwark council level, taxing electric car users is a definite, they are also looking at woodburners and, as a natural extension of that we should not be surprised if gas use crops up too. 
 

Should car use ever be significantly reduced they will need to introduce some form of road tax and surely e-bikes and ordinary cycles would be near the top of the list.

 

[aeroplane]

On 17/03/2024 at 18:25, malumbu said:

It would be helpful to know how much you are paying and what kind of car. 

ULEZ-compliant petrol car. 2011 Ford Fiesta. Last year: £125, this year: £225. Inflation-busting, eye-watering increase of 80%.

Unless y'all oppose CPZs in your area, expect year-on-year increases of similar amounts! Fine if you can afford £300, £400, £500 a year... Pay with a smile!

They gotta squeeze money out of someone, and motorists are the sweetest, lowest-hanging pinatas they can take a bat to.

[malumbu]

A different thread but how would Southwark charge for wood burners?  Would there be enforcement officers going round with sniffer devices?  Would all open fires be included?  Just interested on whether this is practical , irrespective of the argument for and against.

There's been anti pollution zones since the clean air act.  Best controlled at source ie you could no longer order vast quantities of smokey coal at a time when it was the main way most heated their homes.  Now it is more niche using coal, and wood, difficult at retail, and you can just chop down a tree in you garden or forage elsewhere.

[first mate]

3 hours ago, aeroplane said:

ULEZ-compliant petrol car. 2011 Ford Fiesta. Last year: £125, this year: £225. Inflation-busting, eye-watering increase of 80%.

Unless y'all oppose CPZs in your area, expect year-on-year increases of similar amounts! Fine if you can afford £300, £400, £500 a year... Pay with a smile!

They gotta squeeze money out of someone, and motorists are the sweetest, lowest-hanging pinatas they can take a bat to.

Yup, that is how it will go and very much the plan. Once, and if, that source of funding runs dry they'll be looking around for others.  

[Nigello]

Maybe toasters and gas hobs should be subject to taxes, given that they too produce particulate matter? Same goes for tyres on motor vehicles. 

[malumbu]

Soot from wood burners can be higher than cars in urban areas (as filters on diesel cars have successfully cut emissions, as fuel injection and three way catalysts did for petrol cars a decade or two earlier).  A case for control would you not say?

Indoor air quality is not controlled, beyond in hazardous industries.  Here's an alarmist article from the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/15/gas-stoves-pollution-alternatives

And more informed view: https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pb-0054/

Extracting from this: The Government has established a cross-department working group and pledged to tackle aspects of indoor air quality in its 2019 Clean Air Strategy. This included several commitments to reduce emissions in the home such as prohibiting the sale of the most polluting fuels and stoves, improving consumer awareness, and giving new powers to local authorities to take action to minimise air pollution. 

Air pollution can be worse in your vehicle than on the street - perhaps a case for even more controls on driving

https://www.london.gov.uk/publications/vehicle-exposure-traffic-and-road-generated-air-pollution

Edited March 22 by malumbu

[Spartacus]

Maybe Thanos had the right idea and we need to reduce population to stop pollution 

Although as someone pointed out that as he made 50% of living matter vanish, that includes gut microbes and everyone was in for a sh!tty time after 😅