CPZ in Dulwich Village ward to go live on January 6

[Earl Aelfheah]

9 minutes ago, Kathleen Olander said:

The purpose of a CPZ is to create more income for Southwark Council.

If you believe this then I can understand why you may think its 'fair' for coaches to pay. I personally don't think it's about this. The use of controlled parking zones is strictly regulated and isn't used for generating income for the council. The money has to be redirected into improving the streets and improving road safety, they can't be used to fund council services.

[Kathleen Olander]

2 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

If you believe this then I can understand why you may think its 'fair' for coaches to pay. I personally don't think it's about this. The use of controlled parking zones is strictly regulated and isn't used for generating income for the council. The money has to be redirected into improving the streets and improving road safety, they can't be used to fund council services.

You could have reposted the whole of my post rather than that one bit!

Anyway I am out of here, otherwise I will have 7.4 posts to my credit as well.  Where do you find the time??????????

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

I was commenting on that bit. That’s why I quoted that bit.

[first mate]

13 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The use of controlled parking zones is strictly regulated and isn't used for generating income for the council. The money has to be redirected into improving the streets and improving road safety, they can't be used to fund council services.

The Council have a Cabinet Member for Streets (James McAsh) one of his stated aims is to improve streets by reducing car use- indicating this is a process that is funded somehow? CPZ, extending double yellows, and LTNs, are the three blunt tools that are employed by the council to reduce car ownership. To effectively operate all three you need cameras, camera cars, parking wardens and an administrative section to handle fines. Are you suggesting the council are not involved in the funding of these in any way?

The council also aims to put bike storage on every street, which also remove parking- funded how?

How are parklets and street furniture for blocking LTNs funded? For that matter, can we be completely sure where the money to fund Dulwich Junction has come from?

How are the many CPZ consultations funded, are we absolutely sure existing CPZ income is never used to fund further consultation on CPZ?

How do we separate what is strictly a council service from a stated council agenda and mission? This is also perhaps a matter of a little bit of wordplay. I would suggest that while in the strictest sense CPZ money does not fund council services, it is quite likely funding certain council agendas and interventions.

 

Edited Friday at 07:46 by first mate
Clarity and typos

[Earl Aelfheah]

12 hours ago, first mate said:

To effectively operate all three you need cameras, camera cars, parking wardens and an administrative section to handle fines. Are you suggesting the council are not involved in the funding of these in any way?

They fund themselves. That’s the point. The money raised has to be put back into running these sorts of initiatives and cannot be used to fund other services. If they could then there might be an argument that they were being used to raise money to run the council (as some seem to be suggesting, but which is not actually the case).

Edited Friday at 08:30 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

So that money is not used to increase bike storage on the street, for parklets and 'greening'? It is not used to build and install various types of street furniture and for major changes to the streetscape, like Dulwich Square? We should also add pavement repair/refurbishment, street cleaning...

 

Edited Friday at 08:36 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

Here is a link to the relevant legislation that strictly regulates how the money raised can be used if you’re interested

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/55 

23 minutes ago, first mate said:

So that money is not used to increase bike storage on the street, for parklets and 'greening'? It is not used to build and install various types of street furniture and for major changes to the streetscape, like Dulwich Square? We should also add pavement repair/refurbishment, street cleaning...

 

Yes, it is. If you read my previous post I have listed some of the ways it can be used. 

On 17/12/2024 at 12:13, Earl Aelfheah said:

The use of any surplus that results from parking is strictly governed by legislation and is tightly controlled. It can only be used for activities specified in Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as amended). These activities include:

• public realm improvements
• road safety initiatives
• freedom passes for disabled people and people over 60

(👆🏾this one)

Road safety and public realm improvements would include things like filtered streets, bike lanes, expanded pedestrian spaces etc.

Edited Friday at 08:59 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Therefore something like the incredibly expensive Dulwich Square, unpopular and uncalled for by many local residents, is funded via CPZ revenue.

It might be argued that CPZ revenue is enabling the council to fund highly politicised interventions and an agenda imposed, possibly against the wishes of the majority of local residents. 

Public realm improvements" is quite a vague term and perhaps deserves close scrutiny. Pavement upkeep and cleaning are surely basic, essential services.

It is going off point slightly, but I still feel there is a disgraceful hypocrisy in the so called 'greening' of streets while the council is happy to sell off in annual letting, great chunks of local park, turning a blind eye to light and diesel generator pollution and long-term damage to the land, that is the product of the park event industry.

One wonders if instead of investing more CPZ revenue into street cleaning, leaf sweeping, pavement repair, which seems to have dwindled, the council are choosing instead to use monies for more consultations on CPZ and whatever they can do to change the streetscape to increase parking pressure and move again towards their political agenda of a borough-wide CPZ.

 

Edited Friday at 09:24 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

Public realm improvements" is quite a vague term and perhaps deserves close scrutiny. Pavement upkeep and cleaning are surely basic, essential services.

There is a quite a bit of detail in the regulations I linked if you're interested. This (from Shropshire council), gives a slightly easier to digest summary of the relevant legislation : https://shropshire.gov.uk/committee-services/documents/s15733/8 Appendix 1 Parking Strategy Proposals - Charging rules and guidance on use of car parking income.pdf

The question about 'income generation' is a nuanced one. In a literal sense, parking charges obviously bring in money (income), but also cost a lot to implement and administer. The idea however, that councils are only introducing CPZs for the specific purpose of income generation is wrong imo, and would break the regulations above.

Income is used to fund the administration of the schemes themselves, and where there is any in year surplus, it is ringfenced for specific things, like street and transport improvements.

The reality of Local Authority funding is that most are struggling just to cover the cost of services they are statutorily obliged to provide (social care, waste collection etc). Many are on the brink of bankruptcy. They do not have a big pot of money for public realm improvements that income from parking permits enable them to redirect (and again, if this is what was happening, it would be a breach of the regulations).

Edited Friday at 10:23 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Two observations; where money is concerned, rules, however strict, are readily bent or even broken if possible, more so if the financial pressures are acute.

Given those enormous financial pressures, how odd to spend millions reconfiguring and re-landscaping a road junction; against the wishes of the many.

Is it that there is so little that the council can do to improve core services that they instead mine what revenues they can play with, to maximise political impact, as in 'oh look how we have improved the public realm for the greater good', we have done x,y and z.

Without that CPZ money to play with to 'improve the public realm' as in portfolios of cabinet members James McAsh and Catherine Rose, is there really very much otherwise that might distinguish the various political parties. They are all obliged to provide mandatory services at baseline, so fiddling around with CPZ revenues is arguably what separates them. They could spend more on cleaning streets, repairing paving... so choices are being made on where to spend, it seems.

I also understand that technically parking revenue can be used to fund free public events in the borough- we have also been told that this is why the council hire out park land for events, to fund free events in the borough. Is the latter ringfenced, do we know?

Edited Friday at 10:55 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

20 minutes ago, first mate said:

Is it that there is so little that the council can do to improve core services that they instead mine what revenues they can play with, to maximise political impact, as in 'oh look how we have improved the public realm for the greater good', we have done x,y and z.

The council can't use money generated through parking charges and fines to improve core services. That is what people have (wrongly) suggested they are doing, and criticised them for. They cannot lawfully do this however -  it is an area that is tightly regulated and controlled. Income is ringfenced, as noted above.  

Are you suggesting that it shouldn't be ringfenced and that the council should be able to use parking charges and fines to generate income for funding core services?

Edited Friday at 11:05 by Earl Aelfheah

[malumbu]

I support speeding being decriminalised, and enforcement through the local authorities rather than the police, where fines go into a general pot.  That will put the wind up those of you who routinely speed.

[first mate]

30 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The council can't use money generated through parking charges and fines to improve core services. That is what people have (wrongly) suggested they are doing, and criticised them for. They cannot lawfully do this however -  it is an area that is tightly regulated and controlled. Income is ringfenced, as noted above.  

Are you suggesting that it shouldn't be ringfenced and that the council should be able to use parking charges and fines to generate income for funding core services?

You seem to have 'misunderstood' what I am saying. I have acknowledged that, in theory at least, budgets for provision of core service are ringfenced. Given lack of funds, this means that all political parties are probably in the same boat in terms of core services they can offer at baseline. In other words, there may be little to differentiate them and that is no good for elections etc..

However, the ways in which they choose to enhance/ extend and then use CPZ revenue to 'improve the public realm' may well be very different and allows them to trumpet those differences and perhaps draw favour - free events ( though not many round here); unwanted but politically advantageous rearrangement of road space, arguing they have taken measures to improve air quality (can be spun into a vote winner; even if little evidence to support), you get the idea. I guess also, even though CPZ  revenue is drawn from one locale, it can be spent elsewhere in the borough on improving the public realm, to maximise political advantage.

On the other hand, there is not so much evidence of CPZ revenue being used for other types of improvement of the public realm, like street sweeping and cleaning, pavement upkeep and repair, both of which seem a bit in decline, round here at least.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

You seem to have 'misunderstood' what I am saying. I have acknowledged that, in theory at least, budgets for provision of core service are ringfenced. Given lack of funds, this means that all political parties are probably in the same boat in terms of core services they can offer at baseline. In other words, there may be little to differentiate them and that is no good for elections etc..

However, the ways in which they choose to enhance/ extend and then use CPZ revenue to 'improve the public realm' may well be very different and allows them to trumpet those differences and perhaps draw favour - free events ( though not many round here); unwanted but politically advantageous rearrangement of road space...

Oh, I see what you mean. I had genuinely misunderstood your point I think. So to be clear, you believe that Southwark are introducing CPZs in order to generate funding for (what you say are) unpopular changes to road space, in order to get themselves elected? I don't really get how that works.

Edited Friday at 12:58 by Earl Aelfheah

[exdulwicher]

37 minutes ago, first mate said:

On the other hand, there is not so much evidence of CPZ revenue being used for other types of improvement of the public realm, like street sweeping and cleaning, pavement upkeep and repair, both of which seem a bit in decline, round here at least.

Because it can't be used for that.

Government regulations require CPZ schemes to be self-financing: they cannot be financed from council tax.  The charge will need to cover the implementation of the scheme, administration and enforcement costs.  Any cash surplus goes into a ‘parking fund’, which is primarily used to fund the concessionary fares which provides free travel for elderly and disabled people.

The CPZ is not (directly) connected to LTNs or to Dulwich Square. However, parking restrictions can form part of a range of measures such as LTNs to generally discourage parking especially around hotspot areas like schools and stations which, by their very nature, tend to attract short periods of very high usage (like school drop-off / pick-up times). With schools, you can sometimes address this by use of School Streets (short term "closures" of the road in front of the school to prevent the stereotypical School Run Mum parking the SUV eight inches from the gate) however in an area such as Dulwich where you have many schools within a very short distance of each other, a CPZ makes more sense than trying to close off areas in front of Alleyn's, JAGS, Dulwich Hamlet etc.

[first mate]

So cash surplus in the Southwark parking fund is definitely not used in any way to fund development and imposition of LTNs, installation of double yellow lines, street furniture,  is not used for improvement of the public realm in terms of street/pavement maintenance, it is not in any way used to fund development, changes or imposition to street infrastructure such as Dulwich Square?

Do or have Southwark used the surplus parking fund to in any way fund free events in the borough? Technically, according to government guidelines they can. What degree of transparency is there in terms of where surplus parking fund revenue is placed? I suppose the council can choose to use surplus anywhere in the borough, so hypothetically more in the north of the borough, even though they may have accrued more revenue from the south, where, car ownership and use is greater?

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Oh, I see what you mean. I had genuinely misunderstood your point I think. So to be clear, you believe that Southwark are introducing CPZs in order to generate funding for (what you say are) unpopular changes to road space, in order to get themselves elected? I don't really get how that works.

If unpopular changes (unpopularity limited by locale) are nonetheless such good revenue providers that they provide surplus that can be used to fund potential vote winners across the borough like freedom passes and free events, while in the process claiming to improve air quality, 'greening' the environment and providing street space for children to gambol and play, then perhaps you can see how it might work. 

Edited Friday at 13:15 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

They can't implement a CPZ for the purpose of generating income - only for managing traffic (there are specific conditions, I've linked you to the regulations, which describe these in detail if you're interested). If after covering the cost of implementing and administering the scheme there is a surplus, then there are also strict rules about how that might be used. This does include making improvements to the public realm. I am not sure I understand your issue? Would you prefer that the council could use parking charges to generate income for funding core services? Or are you just unhappy about the LTN / Dulwich Square, (which you seem to believe is both unpopular and also a way of Southwark winning re-election)? This thread isn't about the LTN. 

10 minutes ago, first mate said:

If unpopular changes (unpopularity limited by locale) are nonetheless such good revenue providers that they provide surplus that can be used to fund potential vote winners like freedom passes and free events, while in the process claiming to improve air quality, 'greening' the environment and providing street space for children to gambol and play, then perhaps you can see how it might work. 

Is this what you are claiming is happening? That Southwark are using the CPZ to fund events to win votes.

Heaven forbid that they should green the environment, or provide street space for children. That does sound awful.

[first mate]

Earl we have already established surplus can be used for other things. Once CPZ is in place there is little to stop the council hiking charges year on year which could yield greater surplus.

Even ex dulwicher admits LTNs and CPZ are linked, as are extending double yellows, to reduce car usage and, allegedly, according to the council, improve air quality. To claim there is no relationship between changes to Dulwich Junction over the last four years and imposition of a new and equally unwanted CPZ in the same area is, to borrow a phrase of yours, "unbelievable".
 

 

Edited Friday at 13:27 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

Read the regulations. 

If I may be so bold, I think your real issue may be your opposition to the types of investments being made in the public realm, rather than the principle itself. That's fine, but maybe say that. Again, this isn't a thread about some changes to road layout introduced 4 years ago.

[first mate]

My point is that the choice of improvements to be made is heavily politicised and is driven more by that agenda than perhaps what may be wanted or needed. Also, with a lack of cash, the council is unable to do much with core services, it cannot innovate or look different, it can barely scrape through to provide the minimum. It seems pretty much the only way it can stand out and look different from the opposition is by choosing how to use surplus.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Just to be clear, the council cannot introduce a CPZ for the purposes of generating income. If you think that this is what they're doing, then you should make a complaint to the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman.

In this case, Southwark say the CPZ is intended to prioritise parking for residents, short-term visitors to shops, and businesses. I believe it's also intended to tackle concerns repeatedly raised by residents about inconsiderate and unsafe parking-related issues, linked to local schools. 

Edited Friday at 13:44 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

No, but it can generate surplus... surplus can be achieved a number of ways, by raising fees; by expanding the number of CPZs. I may be wrong, but I doubt there is a direct and parallel rise between the size/ number/ addition of new CPZs and costs to run and administrate all of them. After all, hasn't Southwark already invested millions in cameras, wardens and other capital costs well before addition of new CPZ.  Even if the intention is to make surplus that can be spent on political projects, falling within the definition of improvements to the public realm, a finance officer can always find a way to disguise intentions, the projected and actual costs. 
 

I am still struggling to understand where all the money to fund Dulwich Square came from. With the council in its knees it surely must have been found in surplus, or perhaps from development of the adjacent garage space in the form of CIL. For example, I believe a council in another part of the country has used CIL to fund CPZ.

Edited Friday at 15:16 by first mate

[malumbu]

Not sure why anyone would object to a scheme that discourages parents driving kids to school with the benefits of less congestion, less pollution and active travel.  You clearly have to have enforcement officers and Southwark is one of the better boroughs for having wardens near schools at start and end time.  If there is any excess then it's great it is going to projects that improve our environment.  If all drivers felt this way then there wouldn't be much to discuss.

[first mate]

Clearly there is surplus, else how are these other projects funded (Dulwich Square, for example).

In that latter case, it is a balance between a space for children to play in and enjoy 'fresher' air ( if that can be proven, which I doubt, so that point is very hypothetical, plus those same children are also bang next to a number of very large and green spaces where they can play) against forcing cars, many on necessary journeys, to take longer routes and massively inconveniencing a number of other residents, a number with limited mobility in a low ptals area, to also take longer journeys. And, all those journeys quite probably increase, if not outweigh, any hypothetical 'improvement' in air quality.

[exdulwicher]

8 minutes ago, first mate said:

No, but it can generate surplus... surplus can be achieved a number of ways, by raising fees; by expanding the number of CPZs. I may be wrong, but I doubt there is a direct and parallel rise between the size/ number/ addition of new CPZs and costs to run and administrate all of them. After all, hasn't Southwark already invested millions in cameras, wardens and other capital costs well before addition of new CPZ.  Even if the intention is to make surplus that can be spent on political projects, falling within the definition of improvements to the public realm, a finance officer can always find a way to disguise intentions, the projected and actual costs. 
 

I am still struggling to understand where all the money to fund Dulwich Square came from. With the council in its knees it surely must have been found in surplus, or perhaps from development of the adjacent garage space in the form of CIL. For example, I believe a council in another part of the country has used CIL to fund CPZ.

You could just read the Parking Reports, they're all online:

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking-streets-and-transport/parking/parking-annual-monitoring-reports

Re the funding - almost all transport interventions come from grants. It's a bit more confusing in London because TfL will often pay some of it so there'll be some money from central Government in the form of a pot of money for sustainable transport or highways repair or community projects which councils (from anywhere) can bid for. Government announce this sort of thing all the time - a pot of £1bn for this, that or the other, councils bid for a portion of it and are awarded some money if the bid is accepted. Councils can supplement that with their own money, money from developers (called a Section 106 which you can read about here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/planning-obligations ) and, in London, maybe some cash from TfL as well.