Just what does Southwark spend CPZ and PCN money on....?

[Rockets]

So, despite the loud protestations from some on what the council can, or cannot, spend revenue it raises from CPZs and PCNs here is the truth as per the council's annual parking report: 

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-10/parking_annual_monitoring_report_2023-24.pdf

 

 

There's a lot to unpack in here but:

• there has been a massive increase in revenue generation by the council since Covid - more than doubled.
• LTNs are being, part, funded by parking, CPZ and PCN revenues (despite what some claim on this forum) - 2 million this year.
• Does anyone know what the Environment Reserve is used for - I can't seem to find any reference to it in the (as yet un-audited) annual accounts?

 

Year on year the number of PCNs grew by a whopping 34% with bus lane PCNs increasing by 99%

 

In 2019/20 the council issued 120,949 PCNs for traffic violations and this is now more than doubled to 264,259.

 

If anyone is in any doubt clearly the council is using parking and PCNs as a significant source of revenue generation to fund a whole host of activities including LTNs. 

[Del in ED]

If this was a business, Dragons’ Den would snap it up!

[first mate]

Also wondering what a few headings actually mean, especially environmental? For instance, the council had plans to convert its fleet of vehicles to electric, could funding new electric vehicles go under the environmental heading?

What does Housing and Community mean? How can parking/fines revenue be used there?

No wonder Southwark want a borough-wide CPZ.

The LTN/LCC lobby voices on here are peddling fabrications about the true motivations for traffic changes in our borough. It is all about the money.

[Earl Aelfheah]

You've asked what Southwark spend money on and then posted a table that accounts for it very well. What exactly are you objecting to?

Re. the revenues, comparing the years 2019/20 and 2020/21 (which include lockdowns) with subsequent years isn't really very instructive.

Edited Friday at 10:32 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Oh, so you now agree CPZ revenue is used to fund LTNs, they are not unrelated?

Since you have the inside track on all this can you explain in terms of use of parking revenue, what does Environmental cover exactly? What about housing and community?

Edited Friday at 10:40 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

To clarify, any surplus is spent on:

• Road Safety including School Crossing Patrols
• Contribution to fund Highway maintenance/improvement works
• Projects in Parks
• LTN Costs
• Environment reserve 

[first mate]

Ah yes, the school crossing patrols- does this include lollipop handlers?

[Rockets]

Earl you were so sure they didn't spend it on LTNs but a few days ago...are you now convinced they do....;-)

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

Earl you were so sure they didn't spend it on LTNs but a few days ago...are you now convinced they do....;-)

I said the Dulwich LTN was initially funded by central government. I also pointed out that yes, surplus could be used for filtered streets, public realm improvements etc. I linked to the detailed regulations which lays out the detail. Honestly, this is tedious. If you think the council is introducing a CPZ for the purposes of generating income, or that they are allocating money from the surplus in ways that break the regulations, then you should make a complaint to the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman; rather than the constant speculation, conspiracy and innuendo.

All this because you got caught in a bus lane 

[Rockets]

Here is what you actually said...back on 20th December..that pretty clear don't you think? 

 

There is very much a direct link between the funding for LTNs from CPZs - so your protestation that there isn't, and your defence of the council therein, was inaccurate.

[Earl Aelfheah]

To be clear, I was talking about the establishment of the LTN as the suggestion was that CPZs were being used to raise money for 'eye catching projects'. The Dulwich LTN was established through funding from the UK governments Emergency Active Travel fund initially, as I've stated above. I also stated on the same thread more than once, that the use of any surplus raised through road charges can be used for activities specified in Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as amended); road safety and public realm improvements etc., "including things like filtered streets, bike lanes, expanded pedestrian spaces etc". Unfortunately for you, my words can be read in context for everyone to see.

But why are you cross posting from the multiple posts you've set up to moan about the LTN, controlled parking and your getting caught in a bus lane? It's just impossible to keep up and feels like more kicking up dust / deflection.

We know you don't like the square, moan on one of the threads you created about the LTN.

We know you disapprove of controlled parking - moan on the thread you created for that and try to keep it focussed.

We know you don't approve of getting fined for driving in bus lanes - just try not to do that, yeh? 

Edited Friday at 16:27 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

You've got the full house of deny, deflect and demonise in that one - congrats!

[Earl Aelfheah]

You really do seem to forget that my words are published and that anyone can go back and read them in context.... and so are yours. 

Taking a screenshot of a comment from a different thread and reposting it out of context into a new one you've set up is not very subtle.

Edited Friday at 16:32 by Earl Aelfheah

[malumbu]

Has anyone complained to Southwark, to their MP or the Transport Secretary?  I have suggested this numerous times, yet all we get is more threads on the same issue. 

[first mate]

Ah bless, Earl. It seems Rockets is just republishing some of what you have already published on this very forum. Thought you might be a bit flattered that he has taken your lead and copied your MO - Earl's sentence slice, dice and quote elsewhere recipe for forum debate. What is that saying about geese and ganders?

Malumbu, it has been noted that you and Earl are now suggesting this sort of thing with increasing frequency. What number in the pro LTN lobbyist handbook is this BTW?

Edited Friday at 16:56 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

14 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Has anyone complained to Southwark, to their MP or the Transport Secretary?  I have suggested this numerous times, yet all we get is more threads on the same issue. 

Of course not, because it's just deflection. The real issue is that a handful of people are still furious about changes which were made to the road layout in Dulwich village 4 years ago. But ultimately, there is no 'foul play' or conspiracy, just a set of decisions which one is perfectly entitled to agree or disagree with.

11 minutes ago, first mate said:

Ah bless, Earl. It seems Rockets is just republishing some of what you have already published on this very forum. Thought you might be a bit flattered that he has taken your lead and copied your MO - Earl's sentence slice, dice and quote elsewhere recipe for forum debate. What is that saying about geese and ganders?

I have never taken screen shots of things Rockets has said and then posted them as images in another thread so they appear out of context. I don't need

Edited Friday at 17:06 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Let's see. Once that DV CPZ gets underway and the knock-on effects of multiple unwanted and unnecessary road tinkering starts to truly bed in.

[Rockets]

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You really do seem to forget that my words are published and that anyone can go back and read them in context.... and so are yours. 

I have nothing to hide and more than happy for my posts to be read, read again and re-read. If anyone goes back to December 20th they can see exactly what you said and no matter what spin you put on it your message was clear...but I suggest they do it quickly before you go to re-edit them....;-)

Bottom line is CPZs and PCNs do fund LTNs...#factchecked

[malumbu]

i am really struggling here.  Drivers have to pay when they do things wrong.  Why are you so agitated by this.  Don't do anything wrong, then you don't pay 

[first mate]

Oh, so now you are saying that CPZ only cost drivers money when they do something wrong? Are you being serious? 

CPZ are meant to relieve parking pressure; there has never been great parking pressure on the streets of Dulwich Village. May I remind you, only part of one street wanted it- that is out of the whole area. So what is the true reason for forcing an unwanted and unnecessary CPZ onto the area? £££££.

 

[malumbu]

No I was just confused as I thought that this was a thread complaining about LTNs and one person on this site complaining that they were caught on a bus lane due to poor positioning.  The numerous threads here which can be summarised as complaining about cyclists, and complaining about Southwark, all meld into one.

[Rockets]

21 hours ago, malumbu said:

Drivers have to pay when they do things wrong. 

I think the point here is Southwark, increasingly, is laying traps to get drivers to pay for the slightest indiscretion for no reason other than to generate to fund ludicrously wasteful projects like the Dulwich Vilage LTN.

Drivers are clearly additional revenue source number for Southwark and if you want/need to drive and car or park a car they see you as fair game.

Remember Southwark revenue generation has more than doubled (well on the way to tripling) in 5 years - which is phenomenal and if they had got their way with CPZs it would have increased even more. 

They are attacking drivers by laying traps and applying thier own rules in enforcement. It's scandalous, especially over the course of a cost of living crisis and the council should be ashamed.

Long live socialism, comrade!

P.S. I would have thought you would have learned from Earl's lesson about jumping to conclusions about whether I got a fine or not!

P.P.S why are you such a huge fan of Southwark,  do you idolise your own local council as much? Perhaps you have a vested interest to declare....you're not another Cllr Pollack are you? 😉

Edited Saturday at 19:53 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 04/01/2025 at 19:48, Rockets said:

I would have thought you would have learned from Earl's lesson about jumping to conclusions about whether I got a fine or not!

You did though, didn't you? 🤣

Edited 13 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah