Earl Aelfheah

You have again linked to a document from Southwark that calls for a “borough wide programme of low traffic neighbourhoods”.

This 👆🏾 is not true, and this 👇… Also posted by you and quoting council guidance, proves it; completely contradicting the previous post. It’s embarrassing that rather than simply correct a mistake, you double down and deflect. It’s a repeated pattern of deliberately spreading misinformation. It’s a shame admin continues to allow you to do this in pursuit of your monomaniacal obsession with an LTN introduced 4 years ago now.

Embarrassing

Where do the council say that either LTNs or CPZs should only be implemented in areas with a high PTAL, or only in the north of the borough? That’s a ‘clever’ response, when challenged on something you’ve repeatedly claimed that is demonstrably false. Well done.

I don't understand what your point is. You keep claiming that the council recommends LTNs only be implemented in areas with a high PTAL / and only in the north of the borough, but then quote them saying the opposite; that they recommend a borough wide programme of LTNs.

You’ve literally quoted them recommending a borough wide programme of LTNs

A location will have a higher PTAL if it is at a short walking distance to the nearest stations or stops. If you live in an area with lots of playing fields and parks and where there are lots of big detached houses with big gardens spread out across fewer streets, then stops will tend to be further away for many of the residents in that area. What is more, an area that is more dependent on car, bus, bicycle or foot to get about, needs action to cut down on congestion just as much, if not more than areas where public transport is easy to access. Lastly, Southwark do no have guidance saying that LTNs or other active travel measure should only happen in the north of the borough, or in areas with a high PTAL as repeatedly claimed. So can we please stop spreading this misinformation? The council have been very clear about their desire to make the borough safer, and greener; to reduce traffic, congestion and pollution, and encourage active travel. They were elected on that basis. They probably believe that controlled parking is part of a strategy to achieve those things. Plus, there are problems with dangerous and inconsiderate parking around the school at particular times, which again, they probably believe this will help address. Not everything is a conspiracy.

A lolly pop lady doesn’t have anything to do with parking. It wasn’t in Southwark’s guidance. See the chat above. Southwark’s guidance recommends borough wide LTNs. And again, this thread is about CPZs

Are you saying you’re against potential improvements to the public realm and the environment from a potential surplus? I don’t get the point.

Fair enough. If you think there is no issue with congestion or parking, then maybe a CPZ isn’t needed. Again, not sure what that has to do with either the square / LTN (this thread is about CPZ), or PTAL.

You could massively increase the frequency of buses running through the village. Many people would still have the same long walk to the bus stop. the fact is that the lack of density in terms of housing, the many, wide open spaces, are a significant factor in the Vilage’s relatively low PTAL I also do not understand how a relatively low PTAL somehow makes the argument against a CPZ? What’s the link in your mind?

@first mate, why don’t you have a look at the Southwark budget docs (all published) and ask your councillor to answer any questions you have. We have already discussed PTAL. It’s clear there is a misunderstanding of its relevance to this debate. The quickest way to increase PTALs in Dulwich Village would be to build a load of high density housing / flats near the main road, or to have buses cutting through the park. The reality is that the character and topography of the village explains its score. But more fundamentally, a lower PTAL does not suggest it’s a good idea to encourage more cars from outside the area, and more congestion, or make it more difficult for residents to park, or visit the shops.

exdulwicher is right about the funding of projects like the Dulwich LTN not being directly funded or linked to CPZs. It was funded by the UK government's Emergency Active Travel Fund initially. Guy’s and St Thomas’ charity also funded some low-traffic neighbourhoods elsewhere in the borough, to tackle air pollution and obesity. I know you are not in favour of the changes made to road layouts 4 years ago, but this thread isn't about that. The CPZ, is about tackling concerns (repeatedly raised by residents) about inconsiderate and unsafe parking-related issues, linked to local schools, amongst other things. btw, if you're really interested in the councils budget, there is information here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/council-tax/how-we-manage-council-tax/our-budget-and-how-we-spend-council-tax

The greyhound in Peckham another possibility?

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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?

Sure, but whilst it may be getting used for that purpose, they don't need to designate it as such. We don't label other short term parking for specific purposes - we don't paint 'grabbing some milk' on parking bays. Just seems a bit odd.

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).

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 Yes, it is. If you read my previous post I have listed some of the ways it can be used. (👆🏾this one) Road safety and public realm improvements would include things like filtered streets, bike lanes, expanded pedestrian spaces etc.

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).

.

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