Melbourne Grove South CPZ consultation

[first mate]

I am sorry, but it is more than three people and they actually live in the consultation area which suggests there is a bit of an issue no? If those meant to be consulted cannot actually respond then what is it all meant to be for?

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

It took me a couple of minutes to fill in the consultation form on line and send it in, I didn't have that much to say.

Just helping me to understand how this works? Many of the questions are optional but there are a couple that are not; one asks if you "want permit controls on your road"?  If you live a bit away from the consultation area, neither on one of the roads in or adjacent to the area, how do you answer that? Doesn't the question suggest you live on one of the roads in the consultation area? I can see that people close and adjacent to the consultation area might be affected and so could answer if CPZ installed then they also want controls as they will take displaced parking. But, if for instance, you live a bus journey away and answer 'yes, I want permit controls on my road" doesn't this suggest you live in or adjacent to the consultation area?

Edited March 4 by first mate

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

commuters/workers be treated specially?  It took me a couple of minutes to fill in the consultation form on line and

So, Mal, despite not living in Southwark, let alone the proposed CPZ, you decided to influence our lives? You got the working staff link I suppose? 

[first mate]

Mal may have somehow sent in a submission to test the link, perhaps he will say. I am however puzzled as to how you can respond in an honest way to the consultation if you do not live in or adjacent to the consultation area? One of the very few mandatory questions asks if you are a resident and if you want permit controls "on your road". There is not an option to say I live further away but I support CPZ in destinations I visit.

[malumbu]

It asked me what street I lived in so I put it down.  They can ignore my response if they want.

But with this view surely only those living on the street should post on here. 

[first mate]

 Not at all, if people feel strongly that a street they do not live in should have CPZ then obviously they are free to post their views on here.

This is more about me trying to understand how the results are collated and interpreted. For instance, one poster on here said he was advised that the council would not make those streets that do not want CPZ have CPZ (aligning with Cllr McAsh' 'promise' this would not happen). However, from the design of the consultation questionnaire, how can they be sure what each street wants?

[first mate]

The issue I see is that if you put down the road you live in you have limited options. The only roads named are those within the proposed consultation area. However if you answer that you live in one of those roads there is no way to check if you do or do not. 

There is also the category of 'other'. By ticking that box it means you may live in a road adjacent to, or very close to, the consultation area and may therefore be directly affected with displaced parking if the CPZ is imposed. But, 'other' could also apply to anyone living in any other road in the borough; so how does this then relate back to the question "do you want permit parking on your road"? Are all the 'other' answers given equal weighting?

What about the bit that asks if you are a visitor or a resident to the area. How does that relate to the "other" and "on your road" questions? Someone in an adjacent road or very close by might legitimately say they are resident..but what about the those living further afield?

 

Edited March 5 by first mate

[Eats Dulwich]

Just to shift the subject slightly, nobody recently seems to have mentioned cost of parking permits (apologies if it has been mentioned, there's a lot of pages!). We've just had our letter asking us to renew our brown waste bins. It is currently £80 a year, double the price it was three years ago. If CPZ comes in is there anything to stop Southwark doubling the price of permits in three years? 

[first mate]

I think it is pretty much a given they will.

[Penguin68]

3 hours ago, Eats Dulwich said:

If CPZ comes in is there anything to stop Southwark doubling the price of permits in three years? 

If it only doubles you'd have escaped lightly. It is fair to note that all councils are on reduced rations from the centre (National Taxation redistribution) which makes even meeting statutory requirements an issue (hence local fury at what has been wasted in the Village vanity project) - but Southwark will continue to ramp-up what it can out of discretionary charges - i.e. car related and waste collection related. When I moved here nearly 40 years ago, garden rubbish and large items were collected out of 'general rates' (Community charges). And there were no CPZs.

[ed_pete]

Regarding CPZ costs, the current charge is £247.50 for the first car if ULEZ compliant otherwise £320.10.  Second or more cars are charged at £320.10 regardless.

When we first had to pay in August 2020 it was £125, so it's doubled since then. Most significant increase was from £133 (in 2022) to £225 (in 2023).

[Northern Star]

Regarding being unable to submit the survey; I wrote to highways who said they would be looking into it. Today I was able to submit using a laptop (rather than my iPhone which didn’t work for some reason!)

[first mate]

Thanks Northern, I also had to use a laptop in the end, so it seems the council questionnaire may not be compatible with a range of handheld devices, which may have put off those who would like to participate. If the case, that is a pretty poor show in this day and age.

[Penguin68]

13 minutes ago, first mate said:

. If the case, that is a pretty poor show in this day and age

Surely you cannot be surprised. The council's 'consultations' in whatever context (vide the discussion on Gala) bear no resemblance to anything which might imply democratic accountability or any unbiased search for 'truth'. Their object is to grind down protesters such that they don't bother to be consulted in future, knowing it to be a farce. And it's working. 

[Spartacus]

Shall we open a book 

Evens : a few residents in one or two streets wants it, and to stop parking spilling into other streets it will be implemented in all 

2:1 : a load of invalid responses will be rejected leaving only ones wanting a CPZ 

10:1 : only some streets want and will get it 

10,000:1 : the CPZ will be rejected 

 

The tic tac toe man says "it's a single horse race" 

[Penguin68]

And 100,000:1 - the 'consultation' will have its timetable extended to take account of the fact that many people were unable to compete it.

[Moovart]

Did anyone go to any if the meetings?  Did anything informative come up?

[first mate]

To be honest, I think it makes little difference. The consultation questionnaire seems deeply flawed and designed to allow anyone, anywhere, to vote to impose CPZ in areas they do not even live in. The council and its CPZ supporters, both outside of and in other parts of the borough, are determined ED should be CPZ.

Note the latest 'messaging' is if those living closer to the city (with the benefit of tube lines) have to have CPZ then it is 'only fair' we should also have it.

I hope everyone remembers that the only legal reason for CPZ is to alleviate parking pressure. In the current consultation area you may occasionally have to park a street away, but otherwise, parking is manageable. 

 

[geh]

I attended the drop in on Sat 1st March and asked the representatives given Southwark Labours track record of failing to consult with business (Melbourne Grove) would they confirm there will be a full consultation with business on and adjacent to Lordship Lane. 
 

“Yes, we will drop in to see every business” was the response .

I’ve just spoken to a local business owner, their experience is not only have the borough not done this, but they appear to have deliberately excluded businesses to the eastern side of Lordship Lane (Franklins side) deeming them “unaffected by the proposals”. 

What ever side of the argument you’re on this is disingenuous, dishonest and underhand behaviour from an administration driven by dogma rather than the wishes of its constituents. 

Edited March 12 by geh
Edited for typos

[first mate]

Businesses on that side will be viewed by the council as 'unaffected' until a few individuals magically pop up with a 'complaint' about parking and then there will be another consultation on that side. Disingenuous is an understatement.

[Charles Martel]

I got this leaflet today. Well done to whoever is organising this.

However I would suggest visiting https://opposethecpz.org/home/documents/ which has several leaflet templates which explain the legal position with regard to CPZs.

It is important that we all remember the lessons of 2023. Southwark council's declared aim then was a boroughwide CPZ with no consultation. This was entirely outside the law and eventually their plan had to be withdrawn, but only after a well organised opposition campaign based on the lack of legal backing for their plan. Section 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the legislation relevant to CPZs, has not been revised, extended or amended since 2023 so any CPZ decision must be made in line with this legislation. This means without reference to nonsense like “kerbside space”. Given Southwark council's stated aim the only thing that is likely to deter further CPZ expansion is a legal challenge. A legal war chest was collected in 2023 and specialist solicitors were retained so this remains a possibility if this scheme is pushed through on unlawful grounds.

 

[malumbu]

My issue is all the stop the ULEZ, stop the CPZs, stop the LTNs, stop taxing motorists etc are single issue campaigning against restrictions on motoring.

Meanwhile the UK is still failing to meet air quality standards, is behind on legal commitments to reduce carbon emissions from road transport, so in the short term more people are ill and die, and longer term (and not so long term as it is happening in front of our eyes) radical changes to our climate.

These campaigns have no answer to this.

[Penguin68]

48 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Meanwhile the UK is still failing to meet air quality standards, is behind on legal commitments to reduce carbon emissions from road transport, so in the short term more people are ill and die, and lon

CPZ adds nothing to air quality issues, indeed vehicles driving around to look for parking space or circling whilst someone does something all add to it. And your pro cycling stance is a little single issue, isn't it?

[Spartacus]

11 hours ago, malumbu said:

My issue is all the stop the ULEZ, stop the CPZs, stop the LTNs, stop taxing motorists etc are single issue campaigning against restrictions on motoring.

Meanwhile the UK is still failing to meet air quality standards, is behind on legal commitments to reduce carbon emissions from road transport, so in the short term more people are ill and die, and longer term (and not so long term as it is happening in front of our eyes) radical changes to our climate.

These campaigns have no answer to this.

In a few years we won't be allowed to buy new ICE vehicles, electric only therefore that alone will massively reduce carbon emissions so the argument that a CPZ is there to reduce carbon emissions in itself should lead to removing CPZs when cars are mostly electric 

Or do you disagree @malumbu? 

Edited March 13 by Spartacus

[first mate]

Ah but the council will love that since electric vehicles are heavier it means they can charge more. They already have plans to penalise owners of electric cars.

In summary, on the one hand Cll McAsh and fans want to rid the streets of all cars, but they also want to encourage shoppers to visit the area in cars and ensure they are able to park, as a matter of 'fairness'. They also feel that because areas closer to the city and to tube lines have controlled parking, it is only 'fair' other areas, with weaker transport links,  like ED, have it too.

The overriding rationale for CPZ in ED has very little to do with parking pressure- the only legal reason to ever have it. 
 
The council also presumably think it only fair that the consultation process is open to anyone, meaning someone living much further afield can decide that your street should have CPZ, purely for ideological reasons, not because of any parking pressure. How is that fair?

 
 

[first mate]

19 hours ago, Charles Martel said:

I got this leaflet today. Well done to whoever is organising this.

However I would suggest visiting https://opposethecpz.org/home/documents/ which has several leaflet templates which explain the legal position with regard to CPZs.

It is important that we all remember the lessons of 2023. Southwark council's declared aim then was a boroughwide CPZ with no consultation. This was entirely outside the law and eventually their plan had to be withdrawn, but only after a well organised opposition campaign based on the lack of legal backing for their plan. Section 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the legislation relevant to CPZs, has not been revised, extended or amended since 2023 so any CPZ decision must be made in line with this legislation. This means without reference to nonsense like “kerbside space”. Given Southwark council's stated aim the only thing that is likely to deter further CPZ expansion is a legal challenge. A legal war chest was collected in 2023 and specialist solicitors were retained so this remains a possibility if this scheme is pushed through on unlawful grounds.

 

Charles, this is very useful. The question I would ask is what does the 'majority' mean? Is it the majority of residents in the consultation area or the majority of those who respond to the consultation? Well organised pro CPZ groups, with members living well outside the consultation area will be engaging with this consultation and that could weight the response. Are there any insights into how responses are calculated?