Dulwich Village CPZ Statutory Consultation

[Charles Martel]

Southwark has just announced they want to put a CPZ on Townley, Calton Avenue, EDG and Gilkes Crescent. Southwark claim it has "listened to residents' views". They haven't. Email: [email protected] because clearly Southwark need reminding what Dulwich thinks.

Southwark conducted a consultation. Results below and huge majority clearly said no.

So if Southwark were listening to residents, Gilkes Crescent would be the only road in DV that would have a CPZ.

 

[malumbu]

Consultation not a referendum as we all know.  If we did everything by referendum then nothing would ever be done.  Nationally referendums haven't got a good history, we need voting reform but we didn't get it.  Perhaps we needed a better relationship with Brussels including reform of the EU, instead we shit ourselves in the foot.  Not all of us are against cubs on motoring.

Edited: Meant shot but I've amused myself!

It was an informal consultation in any case.  Statutory consultation next so perhaps save your views till then

Edited September 3 by malumbu

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

4 hours ago, Charles Martel said:

Southwark claim it has "listened to residents' views". They haven't.

…

Results below and huge majority clearly said no.

 

Seems like the council has listened, and has hacked back the scope of the proposed CPZ, and is now sending the smaller scheme to a formal consultation.

Some truly North Korean turnout from our comrades on Druce Rd!

[Spartacus]

Ahhh the old consultation is not a referendum (unless its in my favour) line 

However as Southwark previously said that they won't impose CPZs unless there is clear demand from residents then a consultation is a referendum.  Unless of course the council have been talking us whoppers 😅

Edited September 3 by Spartacus

[malumbu]

Bit daft of Southwark to say this.  But society would not function if a consensus was sought, particular as self interest trumps the wider picture.  Should we pay more tax for public services.  Many would say yes.  Do you want to pay more tax, most would say no.

[Rockets]

41 minutes ago, malumbu said:

But society would not function if a consensus was sought, particular as self interest trumps the wider picture. 

Especially when it comes to the council and their agenda and gaining constituent consensus. They always put self-interest ahead of their constituents.

[malumbu]

I disagree.  Too many deaths due from poor air quality, and accidents with motorised vehicles.  Climate change is now for real.  Some local authorities are attempting to do something about it.  The Supreme Court compelled the UK to sort out air quality.  The UK has legal targets for cutting carbon emissions.  I'm hoping for more from the centre from the new government.  We all need to take our responsibilities more seriously.

Edited September 4 by malumbu
Added deaths

[CPR Dave]

It's no longer limited to the council 

The government now are also doing all sorts of things they told people thst they wouldn't. 

 

There's a lot more pain and broken promises to come locally and nationally.

 

One day the scales might fall from voters eyes

 

[first mate]

13 hours ago, Spartacus said:

Ahhh the old consultation is not a referendum (unless its in my favour) line 

However as Southwark previously said that they won't impose CPZs unless there is clear demand from residents then a consultation is a referendum.  Unless of course the council have been talking us whoppers 😅

Also, the council was not mandated to impose these CPZs. I am not in favour of paternalistic government, residents should be listened to not told they will have something whether they like it or not. On this point, neither was the council mandated to spend £5 million turning a small part of Dulwich Village into a square. It just decided to go ahead, despite significant local objection.

James McAsh was I believe quite clear in stating that areas that did not want CPZ would not get them.

[Penguin68]

2 hours ago, first mate said:

James McAsh was I believe quite clear in stating that areas that did not want CPZ would not get them

Actually I think, at least initially, that 'promise' only referred to areas within his own ward. Happy to stand corrected.

The wider re-assurance (possibly not worth the paper etc.) was made following a serious foray into potential judicial review, when the apparent basis of any CPZ in Southwark was called into question based on the 'justification' offered in the borough-wide CPZ attempt, when it became clear that Southwark's stated rationale was not in line with actual legislation.

Edited September 4 by Penguin68

[Rockets]

The statutory consultation website is utterly unnavigable which probably means the council gets fewer responses and this probably helps their cause. Amazing that during the initial consultation they publicise and make it easy to give feedback yet in the statutory one it is anything but user-friendly - we got a letter pushed through our letterbox telling you you have until Oct 3rd to respond.

I would love to know how the overwhelmingly negative views of constituents in the first consultation are considered in this one - I suspect they may be ignored.

 

https://consultation.appyway.com/southwark/order/6e28e047-80e7-4bf1-bb97-00bce239c6e9

 

I would suggest that anyone who lives in the area and feels strongly about this responds and encourages their neighbours to do so again - if constituents again say we don't need this or want this you have to hope the council might consider the consequences.

 

If anyone from One Dulwich reads this it might be good to send a missive to encourage others to respond.

Edited September 9 by Rockets

[ArchieCarlos]

Hi,

I think it's a bit unfair, I find the consultation website quite good. Takes a little while getting used to, but you can then zoom on every part of every street, click and see what is going on in great detail and precision.

Overall I am not against the changes, but one thing bothers me: the car parking on Gilkes Crescent & Dulwich Village. It's nice that they keep 19 public car parking bays, however they've gone from being free to costing £5.10 per hour, which seems extremely expensive to me. It's more expensive than on-street parking in Chelsea or Westminster, but Southwark is far from being as rich a borough as those. 

That would be a big loss of amenity to the locals (and not so locals who like to visit the village). I would suggest they offer 30min free parking and then paid after this at a more reasonable rate, in keeping with what they charge on, say, Lordship Lane. 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

26 minutes ago, ArchieCarlos said:

It's nice that they keep 19 public car parking bays, however they've gone from being free to costing £5.10 per hour, which seems extremely expensive to me. It's more expensive than on-street parking in Chelsea or Westminster, but Southwark is far from being as rich a borough as those.

I think this is a reasonable question and suggestion, but would point out:

1) the optimal level of charging for parking is where there is 90% occupancy. That's the level at which drivers can find a spot (maximising convenience) but also not overpricing (maximising revenue). Unfortunately people don't like dynamic pricing or overly complicated tariff structures.

https://vexpan.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/SFpark-pricing-parking-by-demand-Gregory-Pierce-en-Donald-Shoup-access43.pdf

2) it's only the parking immediately by the shops and restaurants that is being charged for. Rightly or wrongly, Turney Rd, Dulwich Village, Court Lane, Dekker Rd etc are all free still.

3) RBKC charges £1.60-£7.40 per hour for parking. Westminster charges £3.19-£9.24 per hour.

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/parking-permissions/visitor-parking-and-pay-phone/paybyphone

https://www.westminster.gov.uk/parking/parking-prices