CPZ in Dulwich Village ward to go live on January 6

[Glemham]

Residents and people who travel to work in Dulwich, have had an early and unexpected  Christmas gift from Southwark Council.
 

In 2023 Southwark consulted about a CPZ for a wide area in Dulwich Village. All but one road declined the offer and the scheme was withdrawn. This year the council proposed a smaller zone to cover Townley Road, Calton Avenue, Gilkes  Crescent, Gilkes Place and part of East Dulwich Grove. Once again only one road, Gilkes Crescent, was in favour of the scheme. Adjacent residential roads made clear their opposition citing displacement of parked vehicles to roads that were already congested during the week.

Last week the roads that were consulted were informed that a decision had been made and the CPZ would be operational from January 6th. The hours: 8 to 9.30 am and 3 to 5 pm on weekdays. The decision has taken everyone by surprise because nothing had been heard since the consultation. Residents had understood that only those roads that specifically wanted a CPZ would get one. None of the adjacent roads were informed. The timeline is, to say the least, very tight given it’s only two weeks to Christmas and most people’s minds are not fixated on CPZs. 
There are some who think that this is a deliberate ploy by Southwark to cause parking and traffic chaos so that residents in roads who chose not - for whatever reason - to have a CPZ last year will quickly change their minds.

Time will tell; but what is not in dispute is the failure of Southwark Council and our elected representatives to inform residents of the result of the consultation(sic) process and to allow a reasonable timeframe before implementation.

[malumbu]

It sounds like they did listen and therefore they reduced the area.  Timing is clearly aimed at those who either park to drop kids off or leave their car and commute from the station.  Are you against the principle, or the way it has been announced.

There are numerous threads on CPZs and other measures to encourage less driving, and it has been stated many times that a consultation is not a referendum.

You talk about traveling to work.  Most people in London use public transport.  I am not sure why drivers need any special privileges.

[Kathleen Olander]

I thought this was a joke, take a look at Appendix A, why do we put up with this?  What is the point in these so called consultations when Southwark Council just do what they want in any case?

 

Dear Residents

 

RE: CPZ Update - 23/AP/3458 – 152-154 East Dulwich Grove.

 

In advance of the planning committee meeting on Monday 9^th December -

 

I wanted to inform you of a material planning update, which would help in reducing vehicular congestion around James Allens Girls School (JAGS) related to application ref: 23/AP/3458 – 152-154 East Dulwich Grove.

 

The consultation on the revised Dulwich Village CPZ (which covers the roads immediately adjacent to JAGS) has been completed and the parking team have indicated that the CPZ will be implemented in the New Year. The hours of operation will be Monday – Friday 08:00-09:30 and 15:00-17:00. This is intended to discourage parent drop offs/pick ups and staff parking – reducing the stress of the road network in terms of traffic, congestion and illegal parking.

 

Related details can be found on the following website:

 

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=8052

 

This includes the Record of Decision and the related Report outlining details. Further details should be announced by the Parking Team through Council communication channels.

 

Given the number of objections related to transport issues, I considered this would be a valuable update.

 

 

With Regards

 

 

 

Zaib Khan MRTPI

Planning and Growth | Development Management | Resource Department | London Borough of Southwark | 160 Tooley Street, London, SE1 2QH

M: 07725 625 458 | www.southwark.gov.uk

 

[CathFeldenkrais]

.

Edited December 7 by CathFeldenkrais
posted on wrong thread.

[Spartacus]

Feels like, regardless of what they say and what residents want, we will get a CPZ as it suits the council agenda. 

 

[malumbu]

Council have followed proper process.  If you think otherwise you will have to make an application for a Judicial Review of the decision.  The letter and links above look fairly thorough.

You will need deep pockets for a JR, and if unsuccessful may be hit with costs.  I've been involved with two JRs for two different councils.  Following controversial planning decisions.  One failed at JR and one was rejected at the application stage ie didn't go to hearing.  Whilst both failed funnily enough the developer pulled out on both occasions.

That's all my advice on Judicial Reviews.

[first mate]

The Council need CPZ in Dulwich Ward to put pressure on parking elsewhere. This is all about moving towards more and more CPZ...this is what the council want but it has been blocked in consultation after consultation, as in the most re cent Dulwich Ward consultation where only one road wanted CPZ.

The council then ignore the wishes of the majority of residents and go ahead and install a CPZ that a majority of those consulted say they do not want.

I'll wait for the usual replies that consultations are not votes; not every resident responds to a consultation etc. Let's be clear though, the stated council agenda is for borough wide CPZ and they will force it through. They do not listen to residents; virtually every move is box ticking to give the appearance of listening, including the DV consultation.

Edited December 9 by first mate

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Good news.

Can't get anything done in this country without months or years of pissing around. Councils need to be let get on with doing stuff instead of having to gather the "input" of their most opinionated, time-rich residents.

"Blocked in consultation...virtually every move is box ticking"

Well, which is it? A process that does block council action or a process that doesn't block council action because it's a sham? You can't have it both ways. All these procedural moans about process and consultation and feelings are just waffle to distract from the moaners' real point: that they don't like what happened as an outcome.

[first mate]

A Council with absolutely no mandate for borough wide CPZ, or indeed a local DV CPZ, just needs to get on and impose a largely unwanted agenda on to us all. 

10 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

All these procedural moans about process and consultation and feelings are just waffle to distract from the moaners' real point: that they don't like what happened as an outcome.

There you have it. It seems the majority of resident consultees are 'moaners' , in your view. But, as we know, consultations don't count. So majority views are just discarded and I would guess that Councillors also label the majority who disagree with their agenda as an inconvenience and as 'moaners'.  We can ask what the point of consultations is and may conclude that it is part of a process that must be done for the council to move on with its agenda, that is it. But the majority against that council agenda are discounted as 'moaners'.

What does count are the extremely influential pro LTN and pro CPZ pressure groups that seem to have the Council's ear. What they advise seems to be what is done. As we also know, many of them are not even local but they set our local agenda on roads and traffic policy.

[malumbu]

The Climate Change Committee report that we are missing our carbon targets.  What are the alternative proposals from those that oppose measures that should help reduce the number of car journeys?  Asking people nicely doesn't work.  The car manufacturers want us to super size our cars then bleat on that targets on EVs are unfair. 

Carbon reduction targets are set in law that all the main parties but one support.  The alternative is Faridge (the name is pronounced with a hard g, not the soft g as he pronounces it) and co who would ditch net zero.  Just be honest if that is your view 

Edited December 9 by malumbu

[first mate]

Have you stopped driving cars Malumbu? My guess is not. If you, of all people, are still driving every so often and making those long trips to France, then I fail to see how the car-free utopia you envisage will ever be?

CPZ will not dramatically stop car ownership or journeys, it just costs the owner more. LTN will not stop car ownership or journeys they just displace traffic.

Not a fan of Farage at all,  but amusing, and possibly revealing, you would dictate how he should pronounce his own name.

[malumbu]

Why the personal comment?  I do bugger all driving, occasional holiday, very occasional shopping. Nothing leisure or work, all by foot, bike or public transport.  Like virtually alI of us i could do more on all aspects of lifestyle but that is for a different thread.  I can also look back on my unenlightened past.

I know people who went to school with Faridge, where that is how his name was pronounced.  It amuses me that he has adopted the French soft g.

So the question is what should we be doing not what am I doing.  Fuel duty/motoring taxes overhaul still seems to be some way off so meanwhile local authorities have to do government's job.

[first mate]

But this is a thread about CPZ and therefore car use/ownership, not lifestyle.
 
"What we should be doing" includes you; if even you cannot do without a car, that speaks volumes. 

Edited December 9 by first mate

[malumbu]

I've posted the above question many times over the years and a number of you refused to get into any debate. 

I get it that you don't like the ULEZ, LTNs, CPZs but driving is a lifestyle. You should be prepared to have alternative options, or just say that you don't want any restrictions. 

Here's some arguments you can use - not for government to tell us what to do, I can't make a change on my own without everyone doing similar, deaths from air quality and road traffic collisions aren't that high and don't justify measures, it will hit my pocket and national growth, nationally we can't do it all on our own if the big polluters don't do similar, last two are Farages  arguments, and technology will sort everything out ,(Trump).  You could also argue that we have passed the tipping point on damage to the environment so we may as well keep playing our fiddle whilst Rome and the world burn.

Edited December 9 by malumbu
Added paragraphs for ease of reading

[CPR Dave]

Gilles Crescent seems to be the source of a huge number of problems in this area.

 

thye all have massive drives with double garages and numerous cars.

 

I think the council should gate off the East Dulwich Grove end of their road too and tell them to go f*** themselves.

[Cancerian]

Thanks for bringing this to our attention Glenham. Another crafty move by Southwark Council to bring something in unannounced to other local CPZ streets with different timings.

Just like the council did with ‘Dulwich Square’ during the lockdown and now they can justify more CPZs and LTNs because of the displacement of traffic.

Then again, anything that James McAsh  has a hand in is 100% sure to go ahead. He is on a par with Ed Milliband. The cost of their consultations and paperwork and manpower is a waste of money. 

This DV CPZ could cause problems in surrounding CPZ streets and parents and workers will park their cars and then walk. 
 

 

 

 

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, Cancerian said:

This DV CPZ could cause problems in surrounding CPZ streets and parents and workers will park their cars and then walk. 
 

Which is exactly the object

[Kathleen Olander]

Southwark Council want all their streets to be CPZ's, it's all about the money.

[malumbu]

Then why did they not do all the streets in the original area?  After consultation they reduced the size of the CPZ.  Does it affect you by the way?

[first mate]

Because with only one street out of all the streets consulted in favour, they could not impose it on every street. They have to give the 'appearance of listening'. You almost immediately trotted out the line "they listened". Although had they truly listened only one road would have CPZ.

They will have imposed just enough to place parking pressure on the surrounding areas. Their's is a long game Malumbu, but many are wise to it.

Edited December 10 by first mate

[malumbu]

I doubt if this conversation has moved on one iota in the last few years.

If you collectively feel so strongly that Southwark has not followed proper process  then you have a complaints procedure and ultimately judicial review.  The ballot box indicates that the masses weren't concerned enough on transport policy to put another government, and other councillors in.  You can say till your blue in the face that a monkey (thinking of Hartlepool) could have stood as a Labour candidate and still got in, but it doesn't change things.

You can also consider statutory guidance on parking enforcement, which Ms Reeves can raise with  the Transport Secretary if there are issues here.  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions

If this was being considered in my street I would lobby to make it fair and proportionate - costs, enforcement, timings, visitors, tradespeople etc.  but I'd be in the minority as my street would also be up in arms.  And it would probably happen in any case 

[Kathleen Olander]

11 hours ago, malumbu said:

Then why did they not do all the streets in the original area?  After consultation they reduced the size of the CPZ.  Does it affect you by the way?

NO, I don't have a car!

[Penguin68]

Can I just make the point (malumbu) that CPZs are not part of the climate change/ clean air initiatives - indeed, as they actually encourage cars to drive endlessly round looking for parking spaces (or circling till a passenger can return from their errands/ shopping) they may be seen as  contributing to climate change/ poor air quality - no better than those LTNs that simply shift traffic to different and longer routes.

For streets that actually want them, they are about parking pressure - but for all others, and indeed as regards their forced introduction against local resident wishes - they are about revenue generation for councils (specifically not allowed under the legislation that permits them at all, of course).

For Southwark, in addition, they are part of their stated desire to drive out (sic) privately owned cars from the borough as part of their class warfare objectives. Need I remind you that the north of the borough is very well served by public transport, and where residents have little or no need of private vehicles to lead a normal life, very much not true of much of the south of the borough, poorly served, if at all, by London's public transport, and notoriously not with a flat, Dutch style topology which readily supports unpowered bicycles.

[first mate]

I think the last point is really valid. The issue with the hills at either end of ED means unless you are fit and able you will have to use an e-bike. Many e-bikes are heavy and that makes it difficult to store them in the home and move them in and out, again strength and fitness is an issue. Outside storage does not feel safe and theft is also an issue.

Some may not feel comfortable using hire bikes for various reasons. Lime bikes are quite cumbersome. I would prefer to use my own bike, rather than prop up some distant USA tech company.

If we had a flat landscape cycling as a go to means of transport much more feasible. As it is, the additive effects of hills, potholes in roads, bike theft and feeling safe after dark, all work against it.

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 07/12/2024 at 19:20, Spartacus said:

Feels like, regardless of what they say and what residents want, we will get a CPZ as it suits the council agenda. 

 

It delivers their policy promises, if that's what you mean about suiting their agenda.

On 10/12/2024 at 14:23, Penguin68 said:

they are about revenue generation for councils (specifically not allowed under the legislation that permits them at all, of course).

Are you suggesting that councils are breaking the law then? Genuinely, I don't get this point. 

On 09/12/2024 at 17:17, Cancerian said:

The cost of their consultations and paperwork and manpower is a waste of money. 

I agree with this. Consultations tend to gather feedback from a self selected, noisy minority, and massively amplify opposition to any change. When a more structured approach is taken, involving a representative sample of the community provided with high quality information on the relevant topic, you tend to get a much more nuanced and useful set of feedback. Southwark's 'citizen jury' is an excellent example of this in practice: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-10/Southwark Report FINAL EDITS v0.5.pdf 

Edited Tuesday at 10:18 by Earl Aelfheah