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

[Charles Martel]

On 09/09/2024 at 15:34, Rockets said:

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.

Of course they will be ignored.  Last year Southwark council announced that Dulwich Village would have a CPZ imposed on it with no consultation at all.  Councillor McAsh announced that this was a “change in policy”.  Actually it was a pack of lies aimed at stripping residents of the right to be consulted that the relevant law specifically grants to them. Even when confronted with his own previous statements clearly defining the correct legal position he continued with the same pack of lies.  This explains the confusion some have had with his position on CPZs.
https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/councillor-under-fire-for-a-blog-post-from-4-years-ago-that-contradicts-councils-cpz-policy/

Last year’s failed attempt to simply push a CPZ onto every road in the borough without any consultation was defeated thank to the folks at https://opposethecpz.org/ who led a well organised opposition campaign which crowd funded a legal challenge.  However it is obvious that the intent to ignore residents remains exactly the same in these smaller areas.

If the residents in an area want a CPZ, like they did around East Dulwich station in 2019,  there would not be the opposition that there clearly is in this case.  Now a handful of hysterical activists seem to have decided that people should not be allowed to drive their children to school.  

The fundamental problem here is that these activists have no convincing arguments to persuade those living in the area that a CPZ would benefit them, or achieve a magical reduction in car journeys.  However these activists provide the council with enough of a fig leaf  to cover their money grab.

[malumbu]

Irrespective of your position you must agree that opposetheCPZ.org are a pompous lot - we demand this, we demand that

To state "We share the Council’s objectives in the Streets for People strategy to reduce traffic, improve air quality and enable safe cycling and walking." without proposals on how to deliver this is disingenuous at the best.

[Charles Martel]

On 24/09/2024 at 23:57, malumbu said:

Irrespective of your position you must agree that opposetheCPZ.org are a pompous lot - we demand this, we demand that

The opposethecpz campaign simply made Southwark council follow the law.  Irrespective of your position you must agree that Southwark council should follow the law.

Do you know what the word “Statutory” means?  If consultation is a statutory requirement for the implementation of a CPZ how exactly did Southwark council think they could have a borough-wide CPZ without any consultations?

My only criticism of the opposethecpz campaign was that it did not go far enough.  McAsh and all the other Southwark councillors who backed the CPZ without consultation proposal were clearly caught in a lie.   A lie intended to achieve a clearly unlawful outcome.   A lie that was clearly meant to result in extra income for the council.  There should be consequences for that level of dishonesty from elected officials and their bureaucratic minions.  Exactly as there are consequences for people who lie to get council flats or lie to get benefits.  With more publicity and a tighter focus on the unlawful nature of the proposals we could have had more scrutiny which would have revealed the dishonest nature of the council in using CPZs elsewhere in the borough simply to raise revenue.

As it is we are left with more of the entrenched inequality the modern Labour party pretends to care about.  Less affluent parts of Southwark get a CPZ because they lack the organisational skills and social capital of places like Dulwich village. 

[malumbu]

Thanks, you've just made the case why Dulwich needs a CPZ.  Let's face it, it is educated, often wealthy, professionals who agree with the need to take action to improve air quality and reduce carbon emissions yet when it affects them ...  It would be great if the anti this that and other campaigns had alternative solutions.  They don't.

[Penguin68]

There is no evidence that a CPZ has any climate impact at all, other than cars driving around looking for somewhere to park, or driving round whilst someone they have driven shops in an area where there is now no parking. CPZs are designed to offer locals the chance to park locally, so actually to the benefit, where there is parking pressure, of those who live in the area. You confuse the LTN impact with a CPZ impact, as regards climate and air quality. It is true that a CPZ is costly, and Southwark wanted to use it to drive revenues, but costly is not such an issue in Dulwich Village, now is it? 

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

Let's face it, it is educated, often wealthy, professionals who agree with the need to take action to improve air quality and reduce carbon emissions yet when it affects them

Oh my......what a wonderfully prejudiced statement that is....

[alice]

What a surprise that wealthy and healthy professionals live in the wealthy area of Dulwich village. 

[malumbu]

6 hours ago, Rockets said:

Oh my......what a wonderfully prejudiced statement that is....

If the cap fits - ho ho

[Rockets]

Nah, sorry - you can't throw that back to me...you've done this before on many  occasions. You're incredibly prejudiced - shockingly so in fact. Maybe you're trying to be funny..who knows.

You're happy to accuse anyone who dares question your way of thinking as some sort of right wing bigot yet you're happy to indulge in bigotry. You can't have it both ways but your attitude is reflective of so many nowadays. It's sad and incredibly hypocritical. 

Edited October 1 by Rockets